Study of “Workism Is Making Americans Miserable” by Derek Thompson
Workism Cult Defined
Thompson observes that Americans have been suckered into becoming members of an identity cult. This cult he calls workism. Thompson writes:
The economists of the early 20th century did not foresee that work might evolve from a means of material production to a means of identity production. They failed to anticipate that, for the poor and middle class, work would remain a necessity; but for the college-educated elite, it would morph into a kind of religion, promising identity, transcendence, and community. Call it workism.
This cult affects the well-to-do college educated. It offers connection, greatness, and validation. It is a sort of an addiction, but if it remains unquestioned and people seek it blindly this cult has many self-destructive properties, the most obvious being burnout.
People Abhor a Vacuum and Will Fill Their Emptiness with a False God
One such false god or false religion is workism. Thompson writes:
The decline of traditional faith in America has coincided with an explosion of new atheisms. Some people worship beauty, some worship political identities, and others worship their children. But everybody worships something. And workism is among the most potent of the new religions competing for congregants.
What is workism? It is the belief that work is not only necessary to economic production, but also the centerpiece of one’s identity and life’s purpose; and the belief that any policy to promote human welfare must always encourage more work.
Homo industrious is not new to the American landscape. The American dream—that hoary mythology that hard work always guarantees upward mobility—has for more than a century made the U.S. obsessed with material success and the exhaustive striving required to earn it.
Lipstick on a Pig (a cliche I love)
Workism is a sort of lipstick on the pig of greed and materialism. Let’s hide our greed and materialism by pretending we’re engaged in some noble, spiritual enterprise. Let’s erect this facade by using pretentious language about our vocation. Let’s give Ted Talks about how amazing our work is.
The HBO TV show Silicon Valley was a parody of workism in many ways.
Isn’t the point of being rich to work less? The answer is no.
This shift defies economic logic—and economic history. The rich have always worked less than the poor, because they could afford to. The landed gentry of preindustrial Europe dined, danced, and gossiped, while serfs toiled without end. In the early 20th century, rich Americans used their ample downtime to buy weekly movie tickets and dabble in sports. Today’s rich American men can afford vastly more downtime. But they have used their wealth to buy the strangest of prizes: more work!
The rich and successful work more because
One. They don’t know what else to do.
Two. They are running away from the misery of not working.
As Thompson writes:
Without work, including nonsalaried labor like raising a child, most people tend to feel miserable. Some evidence suggests that long-term unemployment is even more wrenching than losing a loved one, since the absence of an engaging distraction removes the very thing that tends to provide solace to mourners in the first place.
Three. They are so insecure they must rely on their work identity to validate themselves.
Four. Their work is their religion.
Five. Their “work ethic” states that if they slow down for even the slightest bit their competition will have an advantage.
Six. Their crazy worldview tells them that being overworked is a sign of happiness and success even though the empirical evidence shows the opposite.
Seven. Being at work is where they feel they can be engaged, creative, and their true self.
As we read:
Perhaps long hours are part of an arms race for status and income among the moneyed elite. Or maybe the logic here isn’t economic at all. It’s emotional—even spiritual. The best-educated and highest-earning Americans, who can have whatever they want, have chosen the office for the same reason that devout Christians attend church on Sundays: It’s where they feel most themselves. “For many of today’s rich there is no such thing as ‘leisure’; in the classic sense—work is their play,” the economist Robert Frank wrote in TheWall Street Journal. “Building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”
Could the above points be an outline for an essay that analyzes the causes behind workism?
Another essay could argue that workism has destructive effects on society. One such ill effect is America’s lack of daycare and paid leave. As we read:
Even as Americans worship workism, its leaders consecrate it from the marble daises of Congress and enshrine it in law. Most advanced countries give new parents paid leave; but the United States guarantees no such thing. Many advanced countries ease the burden of parenthood with national policies; but U.S. public spending on child care and early education is near the bottom of international rankings. In most advanced countries, citizens are guaranteed access to health care by their government; but the majority of insured Americans get health care through—where else?—their workplace.
Mass Anxiety, False Expectations, and Burnout
Thompson writes:
But a culture that funnels its dreams of self-actualization into salaried jobs is setting itself up for collective anxiety, mass disappointment, and inevitable burnout.
In fact, you may very well not find the meaning of life at your work.
Professor Jordan Peterson and others say only about 2% of us get a job that is “our calling.” What about the other 98% of us?
Millennials, College Debt, and the Comparison Factory of Social Media
Thompson observes that Millennials are especially vulnerable to the traps of workism:
While it’s inadvisable to paint 85 million people with the same brush, it’s fair to say that American Millennials have been collectively defined by two external traumas. The first is student debt. Millennials are the most educated generation ever, a distinction that should have made them rich and secure. But rising educational attainment has come at a steep price. Since 2007, outstanding student debt has grown by almost $1 trillion, roughly tripling in just 12 years. And since the economy cratered in 2008, average wages for young graduates have stagnated—making it even harder to pay off loans.
The second external trauma of the Millennial generation has been the disturbance of social media, which has amplified the pressure to craft an image of success—for oneself, for one’s friends and colleagues, and even for one’s parents. But literally visualizing career success can be difficult in a services and information economy. Blue-collar jobs produce tangible products, like coal, steel rods, and houses. The output of white-collar work—algorithms, consulting projects, programmatic advertising campaigns—is more shapeless and often quite invisible. It’s not glib to say that the whiter the collar, the more invisible the product.
Since the physical world leaves few traces of achievement, today’s workers turn to social media to make manifest their accomplishments. Many of them spend hours crafting a separate reality of stress-free smiles, postcard vistas, and Edison-lightbulbed working spaces.
Watching people brag about their amazing careers on social media creates FOMO, Fear Of Missing Out, encouraging others to join the rat race.
It appears that constructing or curating their “amazing lives” on social media becomes a job in itself.
Myth of Dream Job Leads to Burnout and Job Market Based on Exploitation
Thompson writes:
The problem with this gospel—Your dream job is out there, so never stop hustling—is that it’s a blueprint for spiritual and physical exhaustion. Long hours don’t make anybody more productive or creative; they make people stressed, tired and bitter. But the overwork myths survive “because they justify the extreme wealth created for a small group of elite techies,” Griffith writes.
There is something slyly dystopian about an economic system that has convinced the most indebted generation in American history to put purpose over paycheck. Indeed, if you were designing a Black Mirror labor force that encouraged overwork without higher wages, what might you do? Perhaps you’d persuade educated young people that income comes second; that no job is just a job; and that the only real reward from work is the ineffable glow of purpose. It is a diabolical game that creates a prize so tantalizing yet rare that almost nobody wins, but everybody feels obligated to play forever.
Even if we become aware of this manipulation, we can’t necessarily stop the workism cult from growing inside of us. The author Thompson himself confesses half way through the essay that the cult owns him.
This shows there is often a disconnect by our intellect and our emotions. Our soul can’t follow the truth we know to exist in our brains.
Is there a cure for workism?
Thompson says in his conclusion that changes in public policy might lead to such a cure: UBI (Universal Basic Income), parental leave, childcare. As he writes:
This can start with public policy. There is new enthusiasm for universal policies—like universal basic income, parental leave, subsidized child care, and a child allowance—which would make long working hours less necessary for all Americans. These changes alone might not be enough to reduce Americans’ devotion to work for work’s sake, since it’s the rich who are most devoted. But they would spare the vast majority of the public from the pathological workaholism that grips today’s elites, and perhaps create a bottom-up movement to displace work as the centerpiece of the secular American identity.
Covid-19 Pandemic and Workism
It’s hard to read Thompson’s essay and not consider workism in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has the population working from home and in general being in a lockdown situation.
It’s hard to believe that when we get out of this pandemic things will return to normal.
People will probably work from their homes more.
Workism may be challenged by the permanent effects of the pandemic on our economy.
Analysis of Thompson’s Essay and Developing a Thesis
Most if not all of everything Thompson writes here is insightful, true, and relevant.
I could see how a writer could develop an argumentative thesis in support of Thompson in two ways:
A writer could argue that Thompson makes a persuasive case about the underlying causes of workism.
Review of the Causes of Workism
One. Successful people don’t know what else to do.
Two. They are running away from the misery of not working.
Three. They are so insecure they must rely on their work identity to validate themselves.
Four. Their work is their religion.
Five. Their “work ethic” states that if they slow down for even the slightest bit their competition will have an advantage.
Six. Their crazy worldview tells them that being overworked is a sign of happiness and success even though the empirical evidence shows the opposite.
Seven. Being at work is where they feel they can be engaged, creative, and their true self.
A writer could also argue that Thompson makes a persuasive case about the self-destructive effects of workism.
Review of Self-Destructive Effects of Workism
One. Burnout
Two. College debt
Three. Unrealistic expectations about finding meaning from a job when only about 2% of workers find their calling on the jobsite.
Four. We constantly feel inadequate as we compare our lives to other curated lives on social media so that no degree of accomplishment will satisfy us in the context of the bigger superstars we inevitably compare ourselves to.
Agreement Trap
Often when an author as good as Derek Thompson presents a persuasive case, we find much we can support, and this becomes a trap because in our agreement we inevitably do little more than summarize the author’s essay.
I could for example use the causes or self-destructive effects of workism as body paragraphs for an “agreement essay,” and I’d be rather bored.
What’s the alternative? Perhaps disagree with the author. I don’t mean disagree just to disagree, but find a real weakness in the author’s essay.
Weaknesses in Derek Thompson’s Essay?
Contrarian Thesis That Picks Apart Thompson’s Essay
While Derek Thompson makes many compelling points about the state of workism in America, his essay in many regards is a failure.
For one, workism is just a refitted term for the perfectionist, a personality archetype that is not new to our current age but has existed throughout time.
For two, the perfectionist commonly becomes self-destructive in his or her “accomplishment dysmorphia,” the condition in which there is never enough of anything because one is in a losing battle against an inferiority complex. People have had inferiority complexes throughout time.
For three, the upper elite 1% who have lots of money and are trapped on the ambition treadmill are neither exceptional nor sympathetic. It is self-centered for someone of privilege like Derek Thompson, a successful writer and journalist, to invest time and energy fretting about the collective neuroses of successful people.
For four, through Derek Thompson’s own confession, he is a victim of workism, and he is projecting his own neurosis and trying to make it universal when in fact most of us aren’t members of the Cult of Workism; most of us in fact are just trying to pay our bills.
Conclusion:
In the end, Thompson’s essay is a failure. It is self-serving; it focuses on a thin slice of rich America who hardly deserve our sympathy and psychoanalysis, and his refitting of the perfectionist archetype into some new workism cult is more of a gimmick than a piece of legitimate cultural criticism. Sorry, Thompson, write something that addresses the real concerns of me and my students.
Dysmorphia
Defined by Mayo Clinic:
Body dysmorphic disorder is a mental health disorder in which you can't stop thinking about one or more perceived defects or flaws in your appearance — a flaw that appears minor or can't be seen by others. But you may feel so embarrassed, ashamed and anxious that you may avoid many social situations.
When you have body dysmorphic disorder, you intensely focus on your appearance and body image, repeatedly checking the mirror, grooming or seeking reassurance, sometimes for many hours each day. Your perceived flaw and the repetitive behaviors cause you significant distress, and impact your ability to function in your daily life.
You may seek out numerous cosmetic procedures to try to "fix" your perceived flaw. Afterward, you may feel temporary satisfaction or a reduction in your distress, but often the anxiety returns and you may resume searching for other ways to fix your perceived flaw.
Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Read Yoni Appelbaum’s essay “How America Ends” and develop an argumentative thesis about the role of massive demographic shifts on American democracy.
I will quote some of Appelbaum’s essay in italics.
“Democracy depends on the consent of the losers”:
Democracy depends on the consent of the losers. For most of the 20th century, parties and candidates in the United States have competed in elections with the understanding that electoral defeats are neither permanent nor intolerable. The losers could accept the result, adjust their ideas and coalitions, and move on to fight in the next election. Ideas and policies would be contested, sometimes viciously, but however heated the rhetoric got, defeat was not generally equated with political annihilation. The stakes could feel high, but rarely existential.
Today, though, is different. Political parties are at war with one another. One wants to wipe out the other. One wants to “own” the other. To fail to “own” one’s political opponent is the difference between life and death.
There is therefore no peaceful loss of an election. One is always at war and one must always fuel aggression by feeding one’s social media outrage machine.
This leads to political division that is so virulent or intense that many say the United States is in a Cold Civil War.
Parents’ Worst Nightmare and Secession (individual states separating from rest of the United States)
As partisans have drifted apart geographically and ideologically, they’ve become more hostile toward each other. In 1960, less than 5 percent of Democrats and Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their children married someone from the other party; today, 35 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Democrats would be, according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute/Atlantic poll—far higher than the percentages that object to marriages crossing the boundaries of race and religion. As hostility rises, Americans’ trust in political institutions, and in one another, is declining. A study released by the Pew Research Center in July found that only about half of respondents believed their fellow citizens would accept election results no matter who won. At the fringes, distrust has become centrifugal: Right-wing activists in Texas and left-wing activists in California have revived talk of secession.
We’re now in a state of “scorched earth policy,” the appetite to annihilate one’s political enemies, not live in peaceful disagreement.
Our political opponents are demons, subhuman Gollums, and metastasizing growths of cancer.
This atmosphere of dehumanization is resulting in escalating violence from both political extremes. As Appelbaum writes:
In other instances, political protests have turned violent, most notably in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a Unite the Right rally led to the murder of a young woman. In Portland, Oregon, and elsewhere, the left-wing “antifa” movement has clashed with police. The violence of extremist groups provides ammunition to ideologues seeking to stoke fear of the other side.
What is the cause of this nightmare we’re in?
Appelbaum gives some causes: He writes:
What has caused such rancor? The stresses of a globalizing, postindustrial economy. Growing economic inequality. The hyperbolizing force of social media.
White America of the Past Vs. Greater Diversity of the Present
But the dominant cause is the change in racial demographics.
As Appelbaum points out:
But the biggest driver might be demographic change. The United States is undergoing a transition perhaps no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced: Its historically dominant group is on its way to becoming a political minority—and its minority groups are asserting their co-equal rights and interests.
White Christian America is becoming more diverse. The white dominant population is shrinking in the face of greater diversity.
Living in Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, New York, Seattle or other “blue” political zones, we tend to celebrate diversity. After all, diversity is our home. We celebrate the food, the culture, the cosmopolitan mix of people. This is what we know and enjoy.
But in flyover states that tend to lack diversity, where white America wants to cling to the America of the past where white Americans were the dominant group, we have racial hostility.
So you have Diversity America and All-White America, and these two forces, Appelbaum observes, create America’s great political divide.
America is in a battle for its soul, an embrace of diversity and a move toward the future; or a desperate foothold on white dominance and a fixation on the past.
Both groups feel victimized and threatened by the other. Both groups feel “discriminated against.”
Criticism of Appelbaum’s Thesis
Now I’m a white male, and I don’t feel discriminated against. Why is this?
For a lot of reasons, but one is that I grew up in a diverse culture. As a child in San Jose, California, I lived in a neighborhood with a lot of Mexican-Americans, and we ate and played together, shared meals together. Their parents hung out with my parents. We shared ingredients from our backyards and made homemade Mexican dishes.
Later in life, I became a college instructor and hung out with thousands of diverse students.
Pivotal Moments of My Life Marked by the Help of People of Color
In 1987, my first college teaching job was with the help of a Mexican-American.
My second college teaching job I was hired by a female African-American.
My third teaching job, I was hired by a man from Nigeria.
My Teacher of the Year Award in 1994 was given to me by four African-American men.
My first tenure-track teaching job was given to me by an Asian-American.
So I am at home with diversity from a cultural standpoint. But not only that, as a white male, I find the idea of living in an all-white community or a racially segregated community to be disgusting and a moral abomination.
Why? Because racial segregation is not part of my cultural identity.
My cultural identity is based on diversity, inclusion, and cosmopolitan openness. It’s not even so much an intellectual position as it is something that flows through my blood.
Culture and Race
And here is where Appelbaum needs to talk about culture, not just race, in his analysis of America’s political divide.
So, Mr. Appelbaum, I love your essay, but we’re in more of a cultural war than we are a race war.
It’s the cultural war, largely based on race, that makes political elections a matter of “life and death.”
It’s the cultural war and race that makes politics the scorched-earth battle we’re in.
So to reiterate, I agree with Appelbaum that we are in a racial war; but the racial component is complicated by cultural differences. It’s more of a Blue and Red State War.
We need to consider the culture war as we consider writing a thesis for this essay option.
Part 2 of Yoni Appelbaum’s Essay “How America Ends”
Choice C
Essay #2 (1,000 words) Due April 7
Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Read Yoni Appelbaum’s essay “How America Ends” and develop an argumentative thesis about the role of massive demographic shifts on American democracy.
I will quote some of Appelbaum’s essay in italics.
In part 1, we talked about how America is in a racial and cultural war.
Delay the Inevitable
In the next part of his essay, Appelbaum argues that the White Right, or the White Old-Guard, sees American diversity taking over white America eventually. This takeover is “inevitable,” so White America is trying with all its might to delay the inevitable.
To make this delay, white politicians will pack the courts with white judges who will keep the old-guard policies.
Will America eventually make the adjustment to a diverse America?
But sometimes, that process of realignment breaks down. Instead of reaching out and inviting new allies into its coalition, the political right hardens, turning against the democratic processes it fears will subsume it. A conservatism defined by ideas can hold its own against progressivism, winning converts to its principles and evolving with each generation. A conservatism defined by identity reduces the complex calculus of politics to a simple arithmetic question—and at some point, the numbers no longer add up.
The conservative movement is pivoting away from political ideas and focusing on white racial identity, and this, Appelbaum observes correctly, is very bad and dangerous for America.
And here is the danger in a nutshell:
When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost.
“Whatever the cost” could include:
One. Electing racist demagogues to high office.
Two. Enabling racists who commit acts of violence such as what we saw in Charlottesville race riot with white guys holding torches and chanting, “They will not replace us.” (Vice video)
Three. Weaponizing fake news as a justification to “preserve the race” as seen in the 2020 HBO documentaryAfter Truth: Disinformation and the Cost of Fake News.
Four. Rejecting science-based evidence as a liberal plot to take down white America as seen in Far Right’s dismissal of the very real Covid-19 virus threat.
Regarding the political divide over the Covid-19 danger, we read in Wired:
According to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, only 40 percent of Republicans believe the coronavirus is “a real threat,” compared to 76 percent of Democrats. Fifty-four percent of Republicans say it’s “blown out of proportion.” That’s consistent with earlier polling that suggests Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to call reports about the seriousness of the outbreak “generally exaggerated.”
As reported by Rachel Maddow, there are 7 states, all Red, that are the only remaining states to have no lockdown orders to protect citizens from Covid-19.
Five, the White Right feels justified to abandon “democratic principles” and rely on fascism and facist leaders to win their war. They will elect leaders who lock up babies in cages at the borders and separate the families. This is part of the “scorched-earth” war.
We stand at the abyss, but there is hope, according to Appelbaum:
Even today, large numbers of conservatives retain the courage of their convictions, believing they can win new adherents to their cause. They have not despaired of prevailing at the polls and they are not prepared to abandon moral suasion in favor of coercion; they are fighting to recover their party from a president whose success was built on convincing voters that the country is slipping away from them.
Appelbaum’s hope hinges on conservative party giving up white racial identity politics and returning to political ideas.
But as of writing, the White Identity Cult endures. We can only hope this cult, like Nazi Germany, fades in the dustbin of history and leaves a permanent mark of shame on America, so that we don’t return to this fascism again.
Sample Thesis Statements:
Sample #1
While Appelbaum could better clarify his points by showing that America’s race war is in part a cultural war, he makes a persuasive argument that America’s existential crisis is that the Right is so desperate to fight diversity that it is relying on fascist principles and methods, including electing racist demagogues with no political experience to high office, giving the green light to Racist Extremist Groups to come out of the woodwork, weaponizing fake news in order to “own the libs,” and rejecting science-based evidence as a “liberal conspiracy.”
Sample #2
While there is much to despair in Appelbaum’s essay, there is at the same time ample historical evidence to show that America will overcome its racial and cultural war and find a truce so that democracy may survive.
Should Community Colleges Use Their Parking Lots to House the Homeless?
Choice B for Essay 2, Due April 7, 2020
Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots.
Suggested Essay Outline for Homeless Debate
Paragraph 1: Explain the homeless crisis for California community college students.
Paragraph 2: Your thesis, defend or refute the case that community colleges would be doing a service to the community by providing overnight parking facilities for homeless students in their cars.
Paragraphs 3-6: Develop your supporting paragraphs.
Paragraph 7: Develop a counterargument and rebuttal.
Paragraph 8: Your conclusion is a powerful restatement of your thesis.
Paragraph 9: Videos of homeless students, such as “How Homeless College Students Get by at Humboldt State,” can pull our heart strings by showing us very sympathetic people trying to get by, but do these portrayals encompass the full spectrum of homeless people who will be using the college service and if not, does this not constitute cheap propaganda?
Some Points to Consider:
One. How can we enforce cars that never move and essentially create a permanent homeless encampment?
Two. Will this policy create a homeless magnet that gets out of control and hurts other students?
Three. Is this well-intentioned policy punishing other students?
Four. Will lack of bathrooms result in people going to the bathroom outdoors and creating a health crisis and a repugnant environment?
Five. Will colleges be afflicted with liability for all the crimes committed in these parking lots?
Six. Can colleges afford proportionate security to the growth of people living in the parking lots?
Seven. Should these encampments be allowed at colleges close to elementary schools?
Eight. Will the community become bitter and sour at the community colleges for allowing a festering wound to occur in their "backyards"?
Nine. Is this policy even a true solution to the homeless crisis?
Sample Thesis Against Turning Parking Lots into Homeless Shelters
The proposal to make community college parking lots into homeless shelters is a salient example of good intentions ushering us into the bowels of hell. The misguided plan to make parking lots into a homeless sanctuary will curdle into chaos, stench, and criminality. For one, colleges cannot afford enough law enforcement officers to patrol a vast area rife with assault, thievery, and other criminality, resulting in bankrupting the college with lawsuits. Second, the college cannot afford enough bathrooms to accommodate the thousands of people, which will in turn make the college a giant sewer that contaminates the entire community with infectious diseases. Third, the majority of people will look at the college as a cesspool of criminality and disease and avoid attending this lame excuse for a college, resulting in enrollment numbers so low that the college will soon cease to exist.
Sample Thesis That Supports Turning Parking Lots Into Homeless Shelters
The above rebuttal against the proposal to turn community college parking lots into homeless shelters is a classic use of the slippery slope fallacy in which someone cries Chicken Little and all worst case scenarios while assuming the parking lot plan won’t have any specific contingencies designed to prevent the panic-based emotionally charged scenarios that have been hysterically described above. The above hysterics are in truth a smokescreen designed to make a selfish excuse for ignoring those students for whom horrible life circumstances beyond their control have put them in a homeless situation. Regarding the Hysterical Critic’s contention that there will be criminality in the parking lot, obviously colleges will have a maximum occupancy at the level of which its law enforcement feels comfortable creating a secure place for the students. Regarding the Hysterical Critic’s claim the college will “become a giant sewer,” obviously campus engineers will put enough bathrooms on the premises in proportion to the maximum occupancy allowed. Regarding the fear tactic that non-homeless students won’t enroll in the college, this is a paranoid scenario based on the irrational premise that the college won’t have any limits on the amount of homeless people it accommodates and under what restrictions those accommodations will be based. Let us therefore address the needs of our homeless population and leave the selfish Chicken Little arguments in the argumentative dustbin where they deserve.
Should Community Colleges Use Their Parking Lots to House the Homeless?
Choice B
Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots.
Suggested Essay Outline for Homeless Debate
Paragraph 1: Explain the homeless crisis for California community college students.
Paragraph 2: Your thesis, defend or refute the case that community colleges would be doing a service to the community by providing overnight parking facilities for homeless students in their cars.
Paragraphs 3-6: Develop your supporting paragraphs.
Paragraph 7: Develop a counterargument and rebuttal.
Paragraph 8: Your conclusion is a powerful restatement of your thesis.
Paragraph 9: Videos of homeless students, such as “How Homeless College Students Get by at Humboldt State,” can pull our heart strings by showing us very sympathetic people trying to get by, but do these portrayals encompass the full spectrum of homeless people who will be using the college service and if not, does this not constitute cheap propaganda?
Some Points to Consider:
One. How can we enforce cars that never move and essentially create a permanent homeless encampment?
Two. Will this policy create a homeless magnet that gets out of control and hurts other students?
Three. Is this well-intentioned policy punishing other students?
Four. Will lack of bathrooms result in people going to the bathroom outdoors and creating a health crisis and a repugnant environment?
Five. Will colleges be afflicted with liability for all the crimes committed in these parking lots?
Six. Can colleges afford proportionate security to the growth of people living in the parking lots?
Seven. Should these encampments be allowed at colleges close to elementary schools?
Eight. Will the community become bitter and sour at the community colleges for allowing a festering wound to occur in their "backyards"?
Nine. Is this policy even a true solution to the homeless crisis?
Sample Thesis Against Turning Parking Lots into Homeless Shelters
The proposal to make community college parking lots into homeless shelters is a salient example of good intentions ushering into the bowels of hell. The misguided plan to make parking lots into a homeless sanctuary will curdle into chaos, stench, and criminality. For one, colleges cannot afford enough law enforcement officers to patrol a vast area rife with assault, thievery, and other criminality, resulting in bankrupting the college with lawsuits. Second, the college cannot afford enough bathrooms to accommodate the thousands of people, which will in turn make the college a giant sewer that contaminates the entire community with infectious diseases. Third, the majority of people will look at the college as a cesspool of criminality and disease and avoid attending this lame excuse for a college, resulting in enrollment numbers so low that the college will soon cease to exist.
Sample Thesis That Supports Turning Parking Lots Into Homeless Shelters
The above rebuttal against the proposal to turn community college parking lots into homeless shelters is a classic use of the slippery slope fallacy in which someone cries Chicken Little and all worst case scenarios while assuming the parking lot plan won’t have any specific contingencies designed to prevent the panic-based emotionally charged scenarios that have been hysterically described above. The above hysterics are in truth a smokescreen designed to make a selfish excuse for ignoring those students for whom horrible life circumstances beyond their control have put them in a homeless situation. Regarding the Hysterical Critic’s contention that there will be criminality in the parking lot, obviously, colleges will have a maximum occupancy at the level of which its law enforcement feels comfortable creating a secure place for the students. Regarding the Hysterical Critic’s claim the college will “become a giant sewer,” obviously campus engineers will put enough bathrooms on the premises in proportion to the maximum occupancy allowed. Regarding the fear tactic that non-homeless students won’t enroll in the college, this is a paranoid scenario based on the irrational premise that the college won’t have any limits on the amount of homeless people it accommodates and under what restrictions those accommodations will be based. Let us therefore address the needs of our homeless population and leave the selfish Chicken Little arguments in the argumentative dustbin where they deserve.
Essay Options & Strategies for Essay #2, Deadline of April 7, 2020 (Includes Bonus Options for Fans of Black Panther Movie)
Essay #2 (1,000 words)
Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Choice A
Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls. Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section.
One. You become a slave to external results and validation.
Two. You become blind to everything but your passion.
Three. You burn out.
Four. You lose joy.
Five. Everyone tells you how find your passion but no one tells you how to find it, or how to live with it.
When Passion Helps You Thrive and Be Your Best
One. You use passion to achieve self-determination, which means you are not dependent on external validation or external rewards like money and fame, but for the intrinsic joy of your passion.
Two. Your passion is accompanied by competency and mastery of your craft. In other words, passion without the discipline and focus to make the passion become actualized is worthless.
Three. Your passion is accompanied by autonomy and freedom to live your most authentic self, not a terrified shadow of yourself seeking outside approval.
Four. Your passion gives you a sense of relatedness: your passion connects you to something larger than yourself.
Developing a Thesis for Option A:
One. Of course, we should have some passion for anything we do. It is too self-evident to make a claim that we should have passion or not when making a career choice.
Two. To achieve critical thinking in this topic, we have to talk about passion in terms of specific definition, a specific context, and a specific application.
Definition
Your essay should discern between intrinsic and extrinsic passion.
Not all passion is equal. Some passion is deeply-seated in the core of one's soul. Other passions are superficial and transitory or short-lived.
Specific Context
Your essay should discern between the passion of a noble pursuit, like recycling or saving the planet or developing renewable energy technologies or being passionate about something based on greed or hate or racism or some other despicable impulse.
Passion is not absolute. Life often requires that we make compromises with our passion for our self-interests. For example, I might be a great artist, but I can't make a living doing studio art, so I have to compromise by using my artistic skills as a graphic designer for Honda or Lexus or the computer gaming industry.
The idea that we must "live our passion" without restraint and in some absolute form is often unrealistic, absurd, childish, asinine, and self-destructive.
Application
Your essay should frame passion as only one tool in your career toolbox. For example, passion that is not harnessed by discipline, structure, consistency, and common sense is not only worthless; it's dangerous.
McMahon's "Hot Take" Thesis
To advise people to "follow their passion and do what they love" is an empty, even dangerous bromide unless we attach that advice to important caveats or conditions: People should follow their passion and do what they love if the love comes from an intrinsic place, if people have the discipline and guidance to develop competence and mastery of the thing they love, if people are willing to make compromises when the thing they love can't make them a living as they originally intended, and if people have calculated the net liability of doing the thing they love with its net benefits.
In the case of Ronnie Coleman, the latter calculation is his individual choice. Personally, I would not subject myself to a lifetime of major surgeries, crippling injuries, and pain medications in order to be the world's best bodybuilder; however, unlike Ronnie Coleman, I am not a rare muscle freak who has the potential to reach the level of muscle freakishness that Ronnie Coleman was able to obtain.
Counterargument
McMahon's rebuke of passion is nonsense. We are not mercenaries, robots, soulless android-like supporting our lifestyles with whatever jobs are available. We go to college in part to find a way to awaken passions within us that we can connect to the job market. Eliminating the passion component is foolish, cruel, and unwise because if we pursue careers solely based on financial interests, we will lose our soul, we will fall into depression, we will fizzle out, and we won't have the competitive edge against those who pursue the same fields we do and have authentic passion in what they do.
Choice B
Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots.
Choice C
Read Yoni Appelbaum’s essay “How America Ends” and develop an argumentative thesis about the role of massive demographic shifts on American democracy.
Choice D
Read Derek Thompson’s essay “Workism Is Making Americans Miserable” and develop a thesis that supports or refutes Thompson’s claim that work has become a false religion that doesn’t deliver on its promises.
Choice E
Read"Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell in The New York Times and develop a thesis that argues for or against UBI as a viable solution to the crisis of mass unemployment.
Bonus Black Panther Essay Options for Essay #2
Option F
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?
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.
March 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin; Ronnie Coleman; debate on providing sleepover parking lots: Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students. Homework #6 for next class is to read Yoni Appelbaum’s essay “How America Ends” and in 200 words explain how massive demographic shifts threaten American democracy.
March 19 Go over Yoni Appelbaum’s essay “How America Ends.” Homework #7 for the next class. Read Derek Thompson’s essay “Workism Is Making Americans Miserable” and in 200 words explain the curse of “Workism.”
March 24 Go over Derek Thompson’s notion of “Workism.” Homework #8 is to read "Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell and in 200 words explain the pros and cons of UBI.
March 26 Go over the UBI debate. We will grade Portfolio #1, based on responses 1-8.
March 31 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write first half of your essay.
April 2 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write second half of your essay.
March 3 Cover the Agricultural Revolution. Homework #5: Read Sapiens to page 159 and in 200 words explain how “imagined orders and hierarchies” resulted in “unfair discrimination.”
March 5 Logical Fallacies and Signal Phrase review; Go over Sapiens to page 200.
March 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write first half of the essay.
March 12 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write second half of the essay.
March 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin
Essay #1 (1,000 words)
You need minimum 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Choice A
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?
Choice B
Read Elizabeth Anderson’s “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?” and defend, refute, or complicate the author’s claim that non-religious societies offer a superior moral framework for human evolution than religious societies.
Choice C
In the context of the Netflix documentary Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened, develop an argument about how Yuval Noah Harari's explanation of the Cognitive Revolution exposes human vulnerability to mass manipulation, deceit, and Groupthink.
Choice D
Support, refute, or complicate Harari’s assertion that the “agricultural revolution was the greatest crime against humanity.”
Choice B
Support, refute, or complicate Harari’s assertion that the “agricultural revolution was the greatest crime against humanity.”
You need minimum 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Sample Thesis and Outline
Harari makes a persuasive case that the AR is inferior to the Forager Age evidenced by __________________, ________________, ____________________, and ______________________.
Paragraph 1: Introduction explains the differences between foragers and inhabitants of the AR.
Paragraph 2: Thesis or claim
Paragraphs 3-6: Supporting paragraphs
Paragraph 7: Counterargument-rebuttal
Paragraph 8: Conclusion is powerful restatement of thesis
Sample Counterargument and Conclusion
While I love Sapiens as a life-altering book on how I regard the human race, where we came from, where we are today, and where we are going, I am not totally drinking the Noah Yuval Harari Kool-Aid. I in fact agree with those critics who observe that Harari commits a sort of implied Noble Savage Fallacy by suggesting that pre-agriculture society was vastly superior to the evils evident in a post-agricultural state. Ruthless tyrants indeed flourished in the Agriculture Age, but evil “shot-callers” have always been with us. Any microsociety has an Alpha who dominates the others. Where I agree with Harari is that the Agriculture Age scaled this evil because agriculture resulted in a population explosion.
Secondly, it is too late to fret over our morbidly obese, tooth-decayed post-Forager condition. The Genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. Rather than long to run through jungles in animal skins with our ripped bodies, we need to look at how we might flourish in a world sodden with mono-crops and a growing appetite for mass-produced animal flesh. Here, Harari argues that that A.I. might navigate us out of our self-destruction if we don’t kill ourselves first.
In sum, Harari’s Sapiens is a masterpiece, an unflinching critique of our violent and irrational appetites, our grand imagination, and our drive for dominance, which may or may not spell our demise.
Elsewhere, I wondered the extent to which Harari was projecting an idealistic (even Rousseauian) vision of a noble savage on pre-state peoples. His depiction of a foraging lifestyle (‘A Day in the Life of Adam and Eve’) unencumbered by the complexities and worries of civilisational living could be read as reactionary atavism. In this section, the bibliography and citations are also problematic, Harari makes claims for which it is difficult to trace a source. For example, he affirms that ‘loneliness and privacy were rare [amongst hunter gatherers]’; that the human population ‘was smaller than that of today’s Cairo’; that the ‘average ancient forager could turn a flint stone into a spear point within minutes’; and that ‘hunter gatherers living today… work on average for just thirty five to forty five hours a week’ (52-6). If sources for these claims exist, they are very difficult to correlate with the text.
Signal Phrase Guidelines:
About 80% of your essay should be written in your voice with your words.
Another 20% of your essay will consist of quotations, paraphrase, and summary from credible sources of your choice. We call this "cited material."
When you introduce your cited material, you must use signal phrases.
When you cite material, paraphrases and summaries are with few exceptions superior to direct quotations.
You need minimum 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Signal Phrases
Purpose to Make Smooth Transition
We use signal phrases to signal to the reader that we are going to cite research material in the form of direct quotes, paraphrase or summary.
You can also call a signal phrase a lead-in because it leads in the quotation or paraphrase.
Grammarian Diana Hacker writes that signal phrases make smooth transitions from your own writing voice to the quoted material without making the reader feel a "jolt."
For students, signal phrases are an announcement to your professor that you've "elevated your game" to college-level writing by accessing the approved college writing toolbox.
Nothing is going to make your essay more impressive to college professors than the correct use of signal phrases.
Purpose to Provide Context
Signal phrases not only establish authority and credibility. They provide context or explain why you're using the sourced material.
Example:
As a counterpoint to Yuval Noah Harari's contention that Foragers lived superior lives to Farmers, we read in culture critic Will Day Brosnan: "Elsewhere, I wondered the extent to which Harari was projecting an idealistic (even Rousseauian) vision of a noble savage on pre-state peoples. His depiction of a foraging lifestyle (‘A Day in the Life of Adam and Eve’) unencumbered by the complexities and worries of civilisational living could be read as reactionary atavism."
Same Example with Different Context:
Concurring with my assertion that Harari is misguided in his Noble Savage mythology, we read in culture critic Will Day Brosnan: "Elsewhere, I wondered the extent to which Harari was projecting an idealistic (even Rousseauian) vision of a noble savage on pre-state peoples. His depiction of a foraging lifestyle (‘A Day in the Life of Adam and Eve’) unencumbered by the complexities and worries of civilisational living could be read as reactionary atavism."
Different Example for Supporting Paragraph
Further supporting my contention that not all calories are equal, we find in science writer Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories that there are statistics that show . . ."
Signal Phrase Comprised of Two Sentences
English instructor Jeff McMahon chronicles in his personal blog Obsession Matters that his opinion toward comedian and podcaster Nate Nadblock changed over a decade. As McMahon observes: "Since 2010, I had found a brilliant curmudgeonly podcaster Nate Nadblock a source of great comfort & entertainment, but recently his navel-gazing toxicity, lack of personal growth, and overall repetitiveness has made him off-putting. Alas, a 10-year podcast friendship has come to an end."
Use the above templates and don't worry: you're not committing plagiarism.
As a counterpoint to X,
As a counterargument to my claim that X,
Giving support to my rebuttal that Writer A makes an erroneous contention, Writer B observes that . . .
Concurring with my assertion that X,
Further supporting my contention that X,
Writer X chronicles in her book. . . . As she observes:
Purpose of Credentials: Establishing Authority and Ethos
We often include credentials with the signal phrase to give more credibility for our sourced material.
The acclaimed best-selling writer, history professor, and futurist Yuval Noah Harari excoriates the Agricultural Revolution as "the greatest crime against humanity."
Lamenting that his students don't enjoy his music playlist in the writing lab, college English instructor Jeff McMahon observes in his blog Obsession Matters: "Two-thirds of my students in writing lab don't hear my chill playlist over classroom speakers because they are hermetically sealed in their private earbud universe content to be masters of their own musical domain."
You don't have to put the signal phrase at the beginning. You can put it at the end:
"The Agricultural Revolution is the greatest crime against humanity," claims celebrated author and futurist Yuval Noah Harari.
You can also put the signal phrase in the middle of a sentence:
Racism, sexism, worker exploitation, and pestilence afflicted the human race during the Agricultural Revolution, claims celebrated futurist Yuval Noah Harari, who goes on to make the bold claim that "the Agricultural Revolution was the greatest crime perpetrated against humanity."
"Covid-19 fears make me recall Don Delillo's novel White Noise," writes Jeff McMahon in his blog Obsession Matters, " especially the Airborne Toxic Event chapter in which pestilence affords us a rehearsal for our own mortality."
We are fools if we think we were put on Planet Earth to be happy. That is the fantasy of a four-year-old child. Ironically, this infantile pursuit of happiness makes us unhappy. In the words of John Mellencamp: “I don’t think we’re put on this earth to live happy lives. I think we’re put here to challenge ourselves physically, emotionally, intellectually.”
The idea of a meritocracy is that a healthy society allows people with merits, regardless of their economic privilege, to rise to the top of the power hierarchy. However, such a meritocracy does not exist as privilege, not merit, is the dominant force of acquiring power. As we read in Yale Law School professor Daniel Markovits' essay "How Life Became an Endless Terrible Competition": "Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale collectively enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution than from households in the bottom 60 percent. Legacy preferences, nepotism, and outright fraud continue to give rich applicants corrupt advantages. But the dominant causes of this skew toward wealth can be traced to meritocracy. On average, children whose parents make more than $200,000 a year score about 250 points higher on the SAT than children whose parents make $40,000 to $60,000. Only about one in 200 children from the poorest third of households achieves SAT scores at Yale’s median. Meanwhile, the top banks and law firms, along with other high-paying employers, recruit almost exclusively from a few elite colleges."
Variation of the above:
The idea of a meritocracy is that a healthy society allows people with merits, regardless of their economic privilege, to rise to the top of the power hierarchy. However, such a meritocracy does not exist as privilege, not merit, is the dominant force of acquiring power. According to Yale Law School professor Daniel Markovits in his essay "How Life Became an Endless Terrible Competition": "Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale collectively enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution than from households in the bottom 60 percent. Legacy preferences, nepotism, and outright fraud continue to give rich applicants corrupt advantages. But the dominant causes of this skew toward wealth can be traced to meritocracy. On average, children whose parents make more than $200,000 a year score about 250 points higher on the SAT than children whose parents make $40,000 to $60,000. Only about one in 200 children from the poorest third of households achieves SAT scores at Yale’s median. Meanwhile, the top banks and law firms, along with other high-paying employers, recruit almost exclusively from a few elite colleges."
Toolbox of Explaining Transitions
After you present the signal phrase and quoted, summarized, or paraphrased material, what do you write?
You explain what you just cited.
To do so, you need a toolbox of transitions:
Writer X is essentially saying that
In other words, X is arguing that
By using these statistics, X is making the point that
X is trying to make the point that
X makes the cogent observation that
X is essentially rebutting the philosophical movement that embraces the position that
Logical Fallacy of Denialism and Fake Reality Bubbles in Age of Social Media
Denialism is rejecting reality, facts, and inconvenient truths by surrounding oneself in one's social media information bubble.
One. Lazy "research" at "University of Google."
Two. Drowning in a sea of irrelevancies rather than relying on peer-reviewed studies.
Three. People feel emboldened to challenge science because of their ideological tribe, which gives them power in numbers.
Four. Viral or trending information, even when a lie, quickly becomes truth.
Five. People want validation from their tribe more than they want to pursue truth.
Six. Conspiracy theories get pumped up on social media with false studies, and the majority do not know how to discern real from fake Intel.
Seven. Confirmation bias is available on social media: We cherry-pick evidence that conveniently fits our worldview. Perhaps we see some confirmation bias in Yuval Noah Harari's claim that AR is inferior to Hunter-Gatherer Society.
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
Essay 1 Option Outlines
Essay 1 Is Due March 17 on turnitin
Turnitin Class ID & Enrollment Key:
Class ID: 23791862
Enrollment Key: strength
Choice A
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?
Sample Introduction and Thesis #1:
The viability problem with alternative burgers like Impossible Foods’ version is a matter of whole vs. processed foods. Is the Impossible Burger a whole food? Clearly, it is not. It is a highly processed food thing larded with oil and sodium, so that anyone like myself aspiring to good health is going to stay away from any kind of Frankenstein Patty. If we want to stop eating beef, then we need not replace our “old girlfriend” with her inferior twin. We need to start anew with no such baggage. Therefore, while the Impossible Burger is a sort of bait and switch, offering a more environmentally-friendly version of a burger, it is not a viable alternative to beef because it is still junk food and should not be looked at as a desirable food for healthy eating. At best, it should be looked at like pizza, an occasional foray into a “cheat meal.”
Explanation of the Above Thesis
In the above example, the writer would focus on why “Frankenstein Patties” are not healthy for regular eating.
But this may not be enough material for a 1,000-word essay, so let’s revise:
Sample Thesis #1 Revised:
Frankenstein Patties may be trendy and hyped in our social media environment, but they are not a viable replacement for beef burgers because they are not healthy alternatives, they are too costly, and they do not satisfy the human inborn craving for real meat.
Sample Thesis #2
While I will concede that the oil and sodium used in vegan burgers are not ideal, feeding the world’s burger appetite with Impossible Burger and other alternatives is a good thing because we need to curtail the greenhouse emissions from cows, we desperately need to save water that is used in raising cows, we need to discourage animal cruelty, and we need to forge paths of feeding the world with sources that can accommodate our planet’s population explosion.
Sample Thesis #3
Since animal cruelty and attacking our environment for the sake of beef burgers are both unacceptable, we have to find a powerful marketing campaign to make plant-based burgers a viable replacement for meat. We can and must do this by making plant-based burgers cool in terms of elevated social status, macho in terms of appealing to “the Joe Rogan bros,” and affordable so that the regular consumer can buy what are now overpriced vegan burgers. Looking at the effective vegan propaganda in the documentary The Game Changers, featuring professional fighter James Wilks, is an effective model for this marketing campaign.
Sample Thesis #4
The claim that we should rely on “powerful marketing” to appeal to “Joe Rogan bros” is an absurdity that makes a mockery of a critical thinking class’ Three Pillars of Argumentation, logos, ethos, and pathos. It is illogical to promote a processed burger soggy with canola oil and sodium, thus a violation of logos. It is not credible to reference the slick albeit highly flawed propaganda piece The Game Changers, thus a violation of ethos. It is demoralizing to promote processed foods as a substitute for succulent beef burgers, thus a violation of pathos.
Sample Thesis #5
That we should encourage plant-based burgers using similar rhetorical strategies in The Game Changers is not at all a violation of The Three Pillars of Argumentation. To the contrary, making more powerful branding can indeed be performed while adhering to the topnotch pillars of ethos, logos, and pathos. It is logical to pave ways of alternative proteins to meat as animal products can no longer meet the demands of the world’s growing human population, thus logos. It is credible to find ways to provide plant-based burgers that offer more protein than their beef counterparts, thus ethos. It is inspiring and ethically sound to find plant-based proteins to spare the torture that is inflicted on cows and other animals, thus pathos.
Sample Outline for Frankenstein Patty Essay Assignment
Paragraph 1, your introduction, explain in the context of Tad Friend’s essay why there is an intense race with millions of dollars being invested, in replacing meat burgers with vegan burgers. This race is for money, saving the environment, and relieving animals of cruelty. Elaborate on these issues.
Paragraph 2, your thesis, stake a claim on the viability of plant-protein burgers.
Paragraphs 3-5 are your supporting reasons for your claim or thesis.
Paragraph 6 is your counterargument-rebuttal in which you address your opponents’ objections to your argument.
Paragraph 7, your conclusion, is a powerful restatement of your thesis.
Your last page is your MLA Works Cited page with a minimum of 2 sources.
Choice B
Read Elizabeth Anderson’s “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?” and defend, refute, or complicate the author’s claim that non-religious societies offer a superior moral framework for human evolution than religious societies.
Sample Outline
Paragraph 1, your introduction, write a profile of someone you know who demonstrates strong morals and put this person in a religious or non-religious framework.
Paragraph 2, transition from your profile to your claim or thesis in which your defend or refute Elizabeth Anderson's claim that religion is not only not necessary for morality but actually an impediment to morality.
Paragraphs 3-6: your supporting paragraphs
Paragraph 7: your counterargument-rebuttal.
Paragraph 8, your conclusion, a powerful restatement of your thesis.
Sample Thesis Statements
Supporting Elizabeth Anderson
Philosophy professor Elizabeth Anderson makes a persuasive case that flourishing secular societies develop superior morality to religious ones because secular societies rely on universal or common law to implement justice, not prejudicial religious law, which may or may not exact justice (for example, most religious texts encourage slavery, sexism, and homophobia), because religions have so much toxic baggage contained in their doctrine the only way their believers can market their faith as savory is by cherry-picking passages, emphasizing the good lines and "back-pedaling" the bad ones; and finally, secular societies are better positioned to encourage virtue for its own sake rather than push heaven and hell incentives, which are primitive and childish methods for encouraging moral behavior.
Refuting Elizabeth Anderson
Philosophy professor Elizabeth Anderson's attempt to make the claim that secular societies provide superior morality to religious ones collapses under her misguided view of religion in which she distorts the essence of religious belief; her failure to see that secular societies only provide the most superficial morality for a semblance of order while failing to address the wickedness and urgent need for salvation in the hearts of humanity; her failure to see that adhering to secular society norms is no morality at all but rather conformity to civilizations that emphasize worldliness, not spiritual sacrifice, as the human ideal; and her failure to see that religious values are far more universal than secular ones, which often clash depending on which part of the world they arise.
Mini Essay That Refutes Both Atheist Elizabeth Anderson and Religious Arguments for Morality
Atheists like Elizabeth Anderson and religious people like William Lane Craig who claim to have the answer to morality are both wrong.
In fact, morality is such a rare thing and is practiced with such impotence and futility in the face of immorality that for all intents and purposes morality does not exist at all.
Non-religious evangelist Elizabeth Anderson claims that secular societies create morality through “reciprocal claim making,” but this is no morality at all; it is rather a sort of moral minimalism in which people test the boundaries of doing what they can get away with as long as people don’t make claims against them. This is not morality or even decency. This is conforming to society’s laws only when one feels that to fail to do so will have unpleasant consequences.
Religious people, too, are wrong about morality, claiming that religion is the only source of goodness and morality. On the contrary, religion usually doesn’t make people moral. People are either good or bad, and then they use religion to exacerbate whatever preconditions roil inside them. A good person will use religion to exercise the goodness that is already there. But a jackass before finding religion is usually still a jackass after his religious conversion. Both strident atheists and religious zealots can be bullies and jerks.
Finally, people who claim to be religious only do so at the service of convenience. If their faith is tested so that they must carry their Cross to use courage, self-denial, and sacrifice to live their faith, they usually fail to do so. The atheist vegan and the religious crusader who are both fully committed to their cause are rare breeds and owe their commitment, not to their atheist or religious ideology, but to their innate psychological hard-wiring.
To recap, most people are indecent, most people are unchanging since birth regardless of their ideology, most people put convenience over their ideals, and most people only behave as morally as they are forced to do so, engaging in a sort of moral minimalism, which is so pathetic as to not be deserved to be called morality at all.
Therefore, I am neither swayed by atheist Elizabeth Anderson or Christian William Lane Craig. Both are blinded by their respective ideologies and eager to push their beliefs while conveniently ignoring the moral depravity I’ve accurately and cogently described. Nor have Anderson or Craig refuted any of my trenchant points in the slightest. Their arguments are so flimsy, trivial, and misguided that I found this entire exercise of rebuking them rather boring, and I am now prepared to take a long nap. God, I can't wait till I graduate college, when I'll no longer have to submit to this insufferable torture and bull-crap.
Paragraph 1: We will define cognitive revolution according YNH.
Paragraph 2: We will write a thesis similar to this: The Netflix documentary Fyre shows how the Cognitive Revolution creates imagined realities that work in the service of hucksters, hacks, sociopaths, and mountebanks who can spin an imagined reality or narrative resulting in mass manipulation, self-deception, a quest for status, and _______________________.
Paragraphs 3-5: Your body paragraphs will support the above thesis mapping components.
Paragraph 6: Counterargument-rebuttal.
Paragraph 7: Conclusion, powerful restatement of your thesis.
Another Sample Thesis for Choice C (Netflix documentary Fyre)
The colossal ****show so splendidly rendered in the Netflix documentary Fyre is largely the result of Groupthink evidenced by _______________, ______________, ______________________, and ___________________.
Choice D
Support, refute, or complicate Harari’s assertion that the “agricultural revolution was the greatest crime against humanity.”
You need minimum 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Sample Thesis and Outline
Harari makes a persuasive case that the AR is inferior to the Forager Age evidenced by __________________, ________________, ____________________, and ______________________.
Paragraph 1: Introduction explains the differences between foragers and inhabitants of the AR.
Paragraph 2: Thesis or claim
Paragraphs 3-6: Supporting paragraphs
Paragraph 7: Counterargument-rebuttal
Paragraph 8: Conclusion is powerful restatement of thesis
Sample Counterargument and Conclusion
While I love Sapiens as a life-altering book on how I regard the human race, where we came from, where we are today, and where we are going, I am not totally drinking the Noah Yuval Harari Kool-Aid. I in fact agree with those critics who observe that Harari commits a sort of implied Noble Savage Fallacy by suggesting that pre-agriculture society was vastly superior to the evils evident in a post-agricultural state. Ruthless tyrants indeed flourished in the Agriculture Age, but evil “shot-callers” have always been with us. Any microsociety has an Alpha who dominates the others. Where I agree with Harari is that the Agriculture Age scaled this evil because agriculture resulted in a population explosion.
Secondly, it is too late to fret over our morbidly obese, tooth-decayed post-Forager condition. The Genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. Rather than long to run through jungles in animal skins with our ripped bodies, we need to look at how we might flourish in a world sodden with mono-crops and a growing appetite for mass-produced animal flesh. Here, Harari argues that that A.I. might navigate us out of our self-destruction if we don’t kill ourselves first.
In sum, Harari’s Sapiens is a masterpiece, an unflinching critique of our violent and irrational appetites, our grand imagination, and our drive for dominance, which may or may not spell our demise.
Elsewhere, I wondered the extent to which Harari was projecting an idealistic (even Rousseauian) vision of a noble savage on pre-state peoples. His depiction of a foraging lifestyle (‘A Day in the Life of Adam and Eve’) unencumbered by the complexities and worries of civilisational living could be read as reactionary atavism. In this section, the bibliography and citations are also problematic, Harari makes claims for which it is difficult to trace a source. For example, he affirms that ‘loneliness and privacy were rare [amongst hunter gatherers]’; that the human population ‘was smaller than that of today’s Cairo’; that the ‘average ancient forager could turn a flint stone into a spear point within minutes’; and that ‘hunter gatherers living today… work on average for just thirty five to forty five hours a week’ (52-6). If sources for these claims exist, they are very difficult to correlate with the text.