In the article, Rauch is for the idea
that as much as people are purposing to end prejudice, it is almost impossible
to bring it to a standstill. Just like freedom of expression is present, same
way sexism, racism, Christian bashing, racism, and other kinds of prejudice
exists. Bigotry cannot be successfully controlled and efforts in doing do end
up looking irrational. People exist in a society where each person belongs to a
type of its own in terms of reasoning and different views on various issues.
In the case of Michigan student who felt that homosexuality
is an ailment that can be corrected using therapy, was disciplined for
violation of speech. It is a fact that most religions are against homosexuals
and not a prejudice for those who practice it. The student’s statement was not
bias but a mistaken belief. “American criminals are disproportionately black”
is another example of a statement that is held as speech violation. It is a
belief held by a particular group of people making it impossible to describe
bigotry and hate speech. The author intends to convince the reader that
although offensive speech leads to conflict in the society, a person cannot
tolerate positive and inventive opinions without allowing other people’s ideas
as well.
Intellectual
purity as a purist stance is a direction that leads to criticism by any group
engendering prejudice. In essence it is a doctrine that destroys the mistakes
rather than the person who commits the fault; the error gets penalized instead
of the errant. Pluralism should be the way to go by making the best out of bias
and not finding ways to eradicate it completely.
Works Cited
ReplyDelete“In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected”. Harper's Magazine, May 1995. PDF.
Ahmed, the bulk of your blog reviews what Rauch says. What the assignment asks you to do is to offer your opinion of the dichotomy Rauch creates. You do get to that at the end, but the point here was to engage with the idea, not to restate it.
ReplyDeleteAhmed, you really understood the essay well as I can see after reading your blog. I did pick up some of the things I missed after reading your blog that I missed when I read the original essay. Like Mr. Claflin commented you did not really touch on the idea of Rauch's essay and what he was arguing until the end of your blog and only a little. But that little you did touch on made sense and could have went in the right direction if you would have elaborated more on that idea rather than sum up the whole essay and re state it. Other than that good job.
ReplyDeleteAhmed, I really think that you understood the essay very well. As for me I did not really understand it as well as you seem to. I think that by reading your blog it has helped me further understand Rauch's work and what his opinion is. However, I was confused with your blog because I could not figure out what your argument was on Rauch's essay. I think that you really do know what you are doing and maybe just left that part out because you were carried away with explaining what Rauch was saying in his essay. Elaborating on your own ideas and opinions will help this blog become a better argumentative blog and not so much an informative blog. Other than that I think you are set and are headed in the direction of being able to write a really strong argumentative essay! Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete