Intersections..............................................Discussions about race, class and gender: May 2017

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Isabel Gonzalez , Uncivil Discourse

Gonzalez, Isabel

5/10/17

Sociology 3

Uncivil Discourse

Uncivil discourse is such a major issue dealt with in today's society with it becoming much more recurrent after Trump was elected president. People have found it okay to make threats or become violent with people just because their race, gender, or sexuality. Uncivil discourse is very harmful and has led to people being discriminated, bullied, and other violent acts which needs to be stopped.

The article, "Racial Discrimination In The Woodlands Concerns Residents Board", by Kelly Schafler, is a current example that exemplified how civil disclosure has grown after the election of Trump. Kelly Schafler discusses how she had been living in the Woodland community for years with the community becoming more diverse and being open to the different cultures living there. However, she then begins to discuss after Trump was elected community members begun to discriminate against Latinos. It first began with people mumbling rude comments whenever her or her family spoke Spanish and eventually led to her children being bullied and discriminated in school. It has gotten too out of hand that Kelly has decided to move from Woodlands for the safety of her family.

The only solution that could be put in place is for the President who has the power and is the bases of why uncivil disobedience has become so recurrent. Trump must act or change the way he exemplifies his message as a president. Right now, he is giving off the message that discrimination is okay and he needs to confront hoping that would cause discrimination to die down. We must come together as a society and fight for the right to express our right and stop this violence. We must fight for love and peace instead of violence.

Article:http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/woodlands/news/article/Racial-discrimination-in-The-Woodlands-concerns-11039162.php

Matthew Martinez Uncivil Discourse

Matt Martinez

Uncivil Discourse

Sociology 3

Uncivil Discourse

Uncivil discourse has become a growing issue within the United States, and I certainly believe that it is an extremely harmful one. In recent days it seems as if people with differing opinions seem to be arguing less and less about how they feel about their given opinions, and instead look to attack the other person directly instead of attacking the argument they are making. American people have become far too closed-minded to any new beliefs or opinions that differ from their own, and this polarization of opinions have led to extreme levels of uncivil discourse within our country. In the world of politics, the rise of Donald Trump to President of the United States has led to increased separation of the political parties and ideologies, and each side seems more determined to destroy the other instead of focusing on fixing America. The two parties are focused on fighting dirty, and this uncivil discourse has resulted in nothing but hatred and gridlock between the two main parties and their supporters. To each party, any person of the other party must be attacked and destroyed, instead of that party's policies or ideas.

Uncivil discourse is extremely harmful, as it leads to growing contempt and destroys any possibility of thoughtful debate and spreading of ideas. As divisions within our country seem to be growing, I fear that very little can be done to stop the growth of uncivil discourse. Hatred seems to be running at an all time high in America, and this has manifested itself in much more extreme civil discourse than we have seen in recent times. The only solution to civil discourse, however, would be love, and realizing that besides some minor differences in opinion, we are all the same on the inside. America needs to look to shine through our disagreements, and our people need to learn that love is more powerful than hate.

One important thing that we must keep in mind as well, is that differing opinions on certain issues don't always stem out of hatred. All too often these days, people have become far too quick to condemn someone with an opinion different from their own as hateful, which isn't usually the case. When this happens, free speech becomes threatened, because those who have opinions to share are too quickly shut down.

As many of my classmates have chosen to do, as well as my professor, I have decided to write about the Milo Yiannopoulos event being shut down by violent protesters who disagreed with his messages. When right-wing speaker Yiannopoulos was scheduled to appear to speak at UC Berkeley several months ago, violent protesters attacked and caused an estimated $100,000 damage to the campus and its surroundings. The speech had to be cancelled, but Yiannopoulos and his team were not hurt. I find these events disturbing, because they seem to be the perfect example of how uncivil discourse may be leading to restrictions on free speech. Where Yiannopoulos wished to speak peacefully, he was not allowed, due to some people having differing opinions from his, and deciding to act on those opinions in a violent manner.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html

Arix Pokorny Hate speech or Free Speech

Uncivil Discourse shouldn't go unnoticed in our world but at the same time it shouldn't be blown out of proportion and over hyped like it does happen sometimes. To me hate speech seems to be the biggest problem due to the wide variety of problems that fall into what is considered hate speech. Like you said on the blog what is considered free speech and what is considered hate speech as well as what is protected or unprotected.

The article I chose was about protesting Milo at Berkley where there was at first a peaceful protest of the speaker but then violent protesters showed up requiring milo to be evacuated as well as 100,000 dollar's worth of damage according to CNN. The reason that I choose this world event is because it gives me a chance to explain what I believe is free speech and what is hate speech. Now when it comes to Milo he takes a very unorthodox approach to how he gets his point across when it comes to his speeches across all the campuses that he visited. Although he has a different way of speech what he does is still protected under free speech even if it is offensive to some people, but other people that fall under the same category may not find it offensive. The reason I bring that up is that when it comes to deciding what is free speech and what is hate speech feeling should be thrown out of the conversation because some people are more sensitive to topics than others. An example for that is when a kid hops on social media and says I wish my parents would die, although they may not meahing that n it literally and might be upset of a recent punishment. Now that is their free speech it's not meant to be taken seriously, but what about a kid that may be friends with them that has lost their parents and misses them. Although it is upsetting to the kid it wasn't hate speech directed at him to make him upset him for not having parents. I said all that for the purpose that what Milo says may offend or upset some people's feelings but it is not hate speech because it upset you.

Another thing that I don't feel should be considered when it comes to hate speech is politics respectively. The reason I feel that way is when it comes to politics whether you lean to the left or the right if someone from the opposite side says something you don't agree with shouldn't be considered hate speech, which is another reason I chose Milo at Berkeley was because people have the freedom to protest peacefully if they like, but when people consider it to be hate speech because he gives speeches to people that do want to hear what he has to say and are more conservative, then become violent that isn't okay. The reason I believe that Milo should have been allowed on campuses is because conservative students should be able to hear out other conservative speakers, if liberal students can hear liberal speakers without any repercussion or fear it may be shut downs.

A solution that I think there is a chance to help with that speech and free speech is being open minded. I know it is a stretch for more people to be open minded but if people where more open minded then there would be less people that find it to be hate speech if they hear out why someone thinks the way they do. Even if you don't agree with what they must say but if you end up hearing out what others have to say on the topic that you don't agree with you may be able to understand the persons thought process and therefore less offended or less likely to call it hate speech. Although that wouldn't be the way it would work for everything because racism no matter how hard someone tried to explain their thought process wouldn't be acceptable.

End the end I believe that hate speech is an issue in the world that the media blows out of proportion in some cases. Another thing that I believe in is that there is a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech that weighs in on a lot. To go along with the free speech and hate speech A solution to that is people being open minded enough to understand the thought process behind the thought could help reduce violent actions taken in response to what someone had to say.

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html

Monday, May 8, 2017

Yarehyzi Zuniga-Chavez, political discussion

Uncivil discourse is a controversial topic to discuss about and is a harmful issue. For uncivil discourse to be legally accepted by society would be making a harmful claim and giving some reasoning behind such claim. For example, many people today revolve their lives around social media. Social media has a great part to do with uncivil discourse because anyone can post "hate" speech and people will engage in such claim made.

With the new presidential election that elected president Donald trump there has been many hate crimes and "hate" speech. I for one do not agree with most points about the president, but because I disagree with his views does not mean that I am going go on social media on post hate about him.

In the article that I chose that related to this topic discusses how teachers now a days are not keeping their opinion to their selves and voicing their voices about political discussions. With Donald Trump's election teachers has been discussing about immigration, gay rights, and issues related to race inside of classrooms. Since the election there has been a majority of bullying incidents related to national politics. Students are speaking out saying that Trump will deport a student's family and teachers have no taken matters in their hands to protect all their students.

ARTICLE: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/teachers-not-shying-away-divisive-political-discussion-survey-suggests/

Re:

Kimberly Quinones Hernandez

Tim Kubal

Soc 3

Uncivil Discourse

In today's society violence is strong issue whether it be making threats online or going out and causing a mass murdering. Uncivil discourse is being widely popular as time progresses when it should be decreasing. In school we are taught right from wrong but somehow after we leave school many people forget what is right and what is wrong. With the amount of hate crimes and terrorism happening today who knows how much more it is going to take before things actually start to change.

There has been so much uncivil discourse in the last year since Trump because president. People either love him or hate him and if you do not agree with the other person about Trump you are in for a nasty maybe even violent argument is you can not keep your opinion to yourself. One of the most prestigious universities, Berkeley, in the country took in a very violent Trump Riot. There were suppose to be a peaceful speech regarding Trump when people we did not agree decided to attack causing many, many fights. According to The Blaze, there were over 100 people who took part in the attack from both sides. Some even had weapons that could be potentially deadly if used harshly enough. Who knows many having Trump as president is only going to cause more bad than good.

Uncivil Discourse has become a nor to people today. Everyday you wake up and turn on the news and you are most likely to see something bad that has happened because people can not agree with each other or keep their mouths shut. People need to start realizing that there is so much wrong that needs to be fixed instead of ignoring the issues and letting them get worse. There is a great possibility for change if there was an effort put forth.

Bibliography

Haskins, Justin. "Watch: Violent Brawl Erupts at Anti-Trump Protest in Far-left Berkeley." sgddTheBlaze. TheBlaze, 15 Apr. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/15/watch-violent-brawl-erupts-at-anti-trump-rally-in-far-left-berkeley/

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Kimberly Quinones Hernandez <kimberlyq38@mail.fresnostate.edu> wrote:

Uncivil Discourse
In today's society violence is strong issue whether it be making threats online or going out and causing a mass murdering. Uncivil discourse is being widely popular as time progresses when it should be decreasing. In school we are taught right from wrong but somehow after we leave school many people forget what is right and what is wrong. With the amount of hate crimes and terrorism happening today who knows how much more it is going to take before things actually start to change.
There has been so much uncivil discourse in the last year since Trump because president. People either love him or hate him and if you do not agree with the other person about Trump you are in for a nasty maybe even violent argument is you can not keep your opinion to yourself. One of the most prestigious universities, Berkeley, in the country took in a very violent Trump Riot. There were suppose to be a peaceful speech regarding Trump when people we did not agree decided to attack causing many, many fights. According to The Blaze, there were over 100 people who took part in the attack from both sides. Some even had weapons that could be potentially deadly if used harshly enough. Who knows many having Trump as president is only going to cause more bad than good.
Uncivil Discourse has become a nor to people today. Everyday you wake up and turn on the news and you are most likely to see something bad that has happened because people can not agree with each other or keep their mouths shut. People need to start realizing that there is so much wrong that needs to be fixed instead of ignoring the issues and letting them get worse. There is a great possibility for change if there was an effort put forth.

Bibliography
Haskins, Justin. "Watch: Violent Brawl Erupts at Anti-Trump Protest in Far-left Berkeley." sgddTheBlaze. TheBlaze, 15 Apr. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/15/watch-violent-brawl-erupts-at-anti-trump-rally-in-far-left-berkeley/

Uncivil Discourse

Bibliography

Haskins, Justin. "Watch: Violent Brawl Erupts at Anti-Trump Protest in Far-left Berkeley." sgddTheBlaze. TheBlaze, 15 Apr. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/15/watch-violent-brawl-erupts-at-anti-trump-rally-in-far-left-berkeley/

Ashley Olson Uncivil Discourse

Ashley Olson

5/7/17

Soc 3, MW 9- 950

Kubal

Uncivil Discourse

With the growth of technology in the recent years, uncivil discourse has become even more an issue, but has always been a topic in the past. There are large social media outlets that give users the opportunity to post their opinion for the public to see. Most of the time it could just be their thoughts on the weather today or their reaction to what happened on tonight's episode of their favorite television show. Although we are entitled to our own free speech, these social media outlets have added fuel to the fire with threats against government officials being posted and shouldn't being taken lightly. With one of our professors at Fresno State being let go a result of because of his death threat posts against Donald Trump, threats like these are truly harmful, should not be taken lightly, and I agree with the decision that President Castro made on behalf of the safety of all staff and students here at Fresno State.

With recent events that have happened, scientifically it has been seen that uncivil discourse can actually impact your health. Specifically, Dr. David Williams of Harvard Health explains to Kimbriell Kelly with recent studies he has seen in his research that the "tendency to quickly insult others who disagree with us or who belong to a different political party has created a hostile environment" and goes onto further that the experiences of discrimination directed towards the specific person that affects their health, but that the hostility of the large environment affects the health of others as well. Dr. Williams also states more specific research to prove his point, such as how uncivil discourse relates to specific races have different health outcomes (that blacks live 10 years shorter than whites), but concludes that these uncivil discourse environments can affect the global economy as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/health-science/heres-how-racism-and-uncivil-discourse-can-affect-your-health/2016/08/17/1aea9544-64b1-11e6-b4d8-33e931b5a26d_video.html

Cristian Velasquez Uncivil Discourse

soc 3 essay 5-8-17

Gurkanwal : Civil Discourse is Harmful.

Civil Discourse is harmful because it allows individuals to express their displeasure without any limitations and it creates unwanted tension between groups of interests and tend to cause upmost violence. Even though it is practiced in many schools around the US but under controlled setting but when it is performed out in the world it creates unrest. Also, it infringes upon the right on free speech debate where many individuals consider it to be a violation while others think it is appropriate. Provoking an action or a response from your words which would hurt someone is against the constitution and is to be punished severely. But what would you expect from country's citizens when their own president used civil discourse frequently to turn tides in the political arena. And despite all the media backlash His authoritarian status overshadows all his mistakes. Hate speech should not be used in a public manner and should be confined within person's own private boundaries. The moment it becomes public that where the violence take over and turn the events into incidents. There should be legal limitation set to qualify a speech as civil discourse or under freedom of speech by taking the consequences of that speech into account. For example, in CSU Professor case as long he kept his opinions among his friends it is fine but making it public is what was his mistake as he risked both his and the other groups lives.

Especially in a state where there is inequality civil disobedience will further contaminate the problem. Recently Trump's travel ban into 7 middle eastern countries was a big issue because many believed that it was a hoax and unnecessary use of his power. Trump claimed that the ban will was to reduce or contain terrorism but many sources like an article from Forbes revealed that other countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Egypt who support many extremist groups were excluded from the ban because of his business ties with those nations. This civil discourse on a grand scale did not only offend public but when he named it Muslim ban it targeted a specific religion which is a violation of the law and that's why many judges across country disapproved it. As listed in the blog awareness about the issue and ending inequality would help proportionally reduce violence along with civil discourse as well.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/datadesign/2017/02/01/mapping-president-trumps-travel-ban-vs-his-business-interests-in-muslim-countries/#663793554694

Healthcare is a red herring

Guest Editorial

Yesterday, May 4th, republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a party-line to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The recent vote of our congressional representatives would harm citizens’ health care, and help the rich get richer. At least 24 million Americans would lose coverage. Insurance companies would raise your rates based upon your health. Patient premiums would rise dramatically - $140,510 per year for cancer, diabetes $5,500 and arthritis $26,000. Medicaid funding would be cut by 880 billion dollars. 60 million Americans rely on Medicaid, including children, pregnant women, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and two thirds of nursing home residents.

The health care debate, like most debates, has serious racial implications.

In 2011, Blacks were almost twice as likely as whites to be uninsured. And though they made up just 14 percent of the U.S. population, blacks accounted for 20 percent of Medicaid rolls. Hispanics were almost three times as likely as white non-Hispanics to be uninsured and while they make up about 16 percent of the population, made up 29 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-06-07/medicaid-debate-is-also-about-race

The harm from the republican's plan to gut Medicaid would be shouldered disproportionately by ethnic minorities.

Everyone over age 47 would experience a premium increase. The average premium increase would be $3,200 for people age 50 to 64.

Representatives are not doing much for most Americans, but they are enriching the wealthiest among us: The top .1% of taxpayers would get a $207,000 tax break from this so-called health care bill!

We know economic inequality causes many social problems, and that we are standing on a precipice -- inequality is worse than ever. Yet republicans are trying to push us off the cliff. Their proposals deceptively intensify wealth-transfer from the taxpayers and the government to the wealthiest Americans through bills they call “health care” and “tax reform”. They hope these red herrings conceal their insidious efforts.

It is not too late to stop this. We all should be discussing this issue with our friends and family, and with our representatives. Unfortunately, many of our representatives now adopt a new policy -- they do not meet with constituents at town halls or public events, and increasingly avoid their districts altogether. Perhaps they will see you if you are among the economic elite that would receive a $207,000 tax break from this so-called health care bill.
-Denny Kubal

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Kari Kimura Uncivil Discourse

Kari Kimura

5/7/17

SOC 3

Uncivil discourse is prevailing in today's society. With the recent presidential election, use of social media sites, and ability of people to voice their opinions (due to the First Amendment), uncivil discourse is becoming increasingly common. The varying opinions of individuals have led to protests, hate speech, and criminal behavior. It infuses anger, hatred, and fear upon people. Uncivil discourse is extremely harmful and has the potential of resulting in violence and crime.

Oftentimes, highly controversial issues (typically political ones) are correlated with uncivil discourse and violent behavior. Some topics include elections, racism, abortion, and human rights. When individuals or groups are angered by having opposing ideas from others, they turn to physical acts to get their point across. When this behavior is performed with the intent of injuring others, it is concerning and needs to be stopped. Hate speech is so dangerous because it can correlate with violent behavior and harm innocent people. Hurting others will not solve the problem or make it go away. It will only ignite negative emotions in a person and cause him or her to make irrational and hasty decisions.

In the article, "Albany School District Sued For Disciplining Teens Who Posted Racist Memes," four high school students circulated racist posts to social media. According to the article, the pictures were primarily of African American females with nooses around their necks and next to apes. After being suspended, the boys sued the school district by claiming that it violated their First Amendment Rights. Parents of victims believed this was considered a hate crime and is not protected by the First Amendment. One parent stated that the First Amendment does not promote hate crimes against people based on their skin color; another claimed that it is not right to discriminate against anyone. The high school victims are now suffering emotionally and physically in school. Parents hope that the male students will be expelled from the school. The teen boys also sued for emotional distress. The article accurately demonstrates how both parties end up hurt in the aftermath. The perpetrators harmed the female victims, and now they are also suffering the consequences of emotional distress and having to fight to stay in school. The racist hate speech they posted on their social media posed a threat to others, which is why the school became involved.

We cannot halt prejudice, but we can change how we react and handle such situations. We can lessen the occurrences of uncivil discourse, but eliminating it completely is impractical. To do this, free speech rights need to be well defined, along with the consequences of hate speech. The U.S. Constitutional Amendments are written for interpretation, but with our growing society, they need to be altered for specificity. Restricting free speech is a big solution to reducing the amount of hate speech in public. To enforce such measures, there needs to be increased protection and surveillance on college campuses, public spaces, and areas with protests. Any space that attracts high populations of people, such as concerts and fairgrounds, are also places that need to be supervised for uncivil discourse. Those who pose threats to others must be punished.

References

"Albany School District Sued For Disciplining Teens Who Posted Racist Memes,"

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/05/04/albany-school-district-sued-for-disciplining-teens-for-racist-memes/.

Jayden Garcia. Why uncivil discourse is bad.

Jayden Garcia

Soc 3. M,W 9-9:50

Professor Kubal

7 May 2017

Why Uncivil Discourse is bad

Uncivil discourse is becoming an increasing issue in today's society, with a new President and ever-changing social norms it seems that uncivil discourse had just become a way of life in modern America. Based on my knowledge and readings, uncivil discourse is the discussion of topics in an uncivilized way or manner. Uncivil discourse can lead to riots and violence, I think that some people forget just how hurtful words can be to some people. While some people may see this as their right to free speech, others see it as hate crimes and discriminatory. Uncivil discourse is something that has and will continue to affect people unless something is done about it.

In today's society we see uncivil discourse take many forms, the most common one is racism. Racism is all around us and no matter how hard we try to escape it or act like it isn't there the more it feels like we hear about it. In an article released in The Guardian, a British daily newspaper, the author discussed how Richard Spencer a known white supremacist was punched in the face while being interviewed. This incident sparked a rise in social media, the most noticeable was a "punch a nazi" meme that circulated throughout various social media websites. It was noted that many people were laughing and saying that Spencer deserved it calling him a racist and saying horrible comments about him. While being a white supremacist may not seem right to most people that still does not give them the right to show racist comments back and say demining things about Richard Spencer. Maybe in his mind he is just voicing what he feels is right.

Uncivil discourse is unfortunately and evident part of our society. The continuous use of uncivil discourse in our society will continue to lead to social barriers and increased racism. Many people view uncivil discourse as just another part of our right to free speech, but when it causes social injustice is it still just exercising freedom of speech? Uncivil discourse is not tolerable and there should be something done about this, there is some uncivil discourse that should be considered hate crimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/jan/31/the-punch-a-nazi-meme-what-are-the-ethics-of-punching-nazis

Mayra Rodriguez Uncivil Discourse: UC Berkeley

Mayra Rodriguez

Professor Kubal

Sociology 3

7 May 2017

Uncivil Discourse

Article URL: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html

Uncivil discourse has become a problem lately, and mostly in our country. Many people have their own opinions and express them in their own way, but at times do not realize that the way that they are expressing themselves is not in a civil manner. One primary example would be the reaction that people were giving after the Presidential election of Donald Trump. It was clearly evident that many people were disappointed and did not like the idea of having him as a president, however it was unnecessary for all the violence that occurred at the UC Berkeley. The protest was supposed to be a peaceful protest, but instead was turned into something very violent. It initiated all because people were against all the racism that came after the presidential election and they were no longer going to take any more of it. The way that these protesters approached the situation was very uncalled for and very uncivilized. Not only did they cause damage to school property, but they also hurt many people along the way in a very physical manner. It is understandable that they had the right to stand up for what they believed in and stood up for themselves, but the drastic measures were very uncalled for. Just like the Fresno State professor received consequences for his twitter posts, which possibly put in danger the life of the president, these students reactions showed that they did almost the same thing when expressing themselves. Uncivil discourse seems to be getting much worse especially if inequality in every aspect keeps continuing. Uncivil discourse will only worsen the situations that we are in instead of fixing them, which comes to show that it is a continuing problem.

Bibliography

Park, Madison, and Kyung Lah. "Berkeley Protests of Yiannopoulos Caused $100,000 in Damage." CNN. Cable News Network, 02 Feb. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017. <http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html>.

Skyler Lee, Uncivil Discourse

A Citizen's Responsibility to Combat Uncivil Discourse

Uncivil discourse decreases the quality of rhetoric in professional, academic and social communication. It is a blemish to logic and draws attention away from legitimate arguments. However, due to the broad and nearly undefinable nature of the term "uncivil discourse", it would be difficult (if not impossible) to restrict these statements altogether.

Incidents of uncivil discourse occur daily and are not out of place in modern society. However, occurrences of uncivil discourse seemed to run rampant during the 2016 Presidential elections. There were rash words from both sides, straddling the line between argument and insult. These statements however did not just apply from one party to the opposing party. They often occurred within parties. An example of this is displayed by President Donald Trump's statement about Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson.

Trump used Carson's own description of his past bouts of temper as a young man against him. He hinted that his "pathological" temper was something that could not be cured. However, the part of the statement that began to be uncivil was when Trump compared Carson's fault to "a child molester." He asserted that there was essentially no cure except a cure that he said he did not want to mention. This could be considered uncivil discourse as it hinted that Carson was at the very least, comparable to a child molester.

This statement had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Rather, it was a direct attack on Carson's character, one that held no factual pretense. Essentially, Trump connected the label of child molester to his competitor's name in the minds of the public. He made Carson out to be "pathologically diseased" simply because the man admitted to a weakness of his past ways. This statement had nothing to do with Carson's policies. It only aimed to label him as an unqualified presidential candidate.

This qualifies as uncivil discourse because it is a brash and unfortified statement. However, politicians, government officials and citizens make such statements on a day to day basis. To identify which statements deserve censorship would be a monumental task. In order to accomplish this, the term "civil discourse" would first have to be defined. People would have to answer questions such as "If no violence is hinted at, is it still uncivil?" and "Do we censor every civilian post or just those that imply racist, ignorant or absurd assertions?" Here the freedom of speech and uncivil discourse meet face to face. While, uncivil discourse is harmful, it can not combat the power of free speech granted to citizens by the constitution.

Although it would most likely be futile for government to regulate uncivil speech, society has the choice to combat these ignorant and harmful statements. Citizens can actively stand against uncivil speech and advocate the truth (or at least their version of it). Morals may be defended this way without the suppression of voices, no matter how insensitive or ridiculous they may be. Government and local powers should however reserve the authority to investigate any discourse which they suspect to be a source of legitimate danger. Though uncivil discourse may be harmful to society, it is the role of the people not the government to regulate its presence.

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/11/donald-trumps-greatest-hits-against-ben-carson/

Manuel Alfaro Uncivil Discourse

Manuel Alfaro

Professor Kubel

Soc 3

1 May 2017

Uncivil discourse has the capacity to become harmful, but there's two sides to this. It has the capacity to influence actions from an individual level to a more social level. I'll be taking the side on ways it can inspire non-harmful actions.

In the article, Colin Kaepernick is a Patriot. And Your Respectful Disagreement Makes You One Too, by John Riofrio a professor at College of William and Mary discusses how former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's way of protesting (kneeling during the national anthem) was in a respectful manner, something that no matter what side you are on, conservative or liberal, should understand. The author finds Kaepernick's protest to stand up for two things the United States has long stood for and that is freedom and equality, that his protest is an effort to stand up and protect his freedom and raise awareness of racism and discrimination against Blacks. He makes the argument that politicians are have plenty of wealth that blinds them to the daily realities Americans face especially minorities, something that he truthfully thinks that people don't have a sense to what being a minority is like. That we live in socially segregated society and where we live in communities where the majority of people are copies of one another and when it comes to minorities they have to deal with being treated differently by schools, police, the justice system and banks. But society doesn't see this, they don't see what Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans go through with poverty and forgotten rural corners. What Kaepernick is protesting it's real, bringing attention to the fact that United States, the land of the free and equal rights, are still treating people of color differently in a negative way. According to the author Kaepernick has protested the correct way, he didn't make a press announcement, didn't make noise and did it without violence all he did was respectfully kneeled during the national anthem, something that is a sign of respect such as praying or showing respect to someone who gets hurt during a game.

Could these actions by Colin Kapernick cause uncivil discourse, therefore encouraging minorities to revolt and rebel against law enforcement and Whites? It is a possibility, it could also be considered the complete opposite, encouraging peaceful acts of protest. It is not the act of kneeling down during the national anthem that I agree with, but rather with the idea of doing so in a non-violent way.

Works Cited

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-riofrio/colin-kaepernick-is-a-pat_b_12542660.html

Matthew Bevers, Uncivil Discourse, Berkeley Riots

Matthew Bevers

5/3/17

Soc 111

Uncivil Discourse

Uncivil discourse is a problem in this country, but it's not quite the problem that people think it is. As far as I understand, the definition of civil discourse is that topics are discussed in an uncivilized manner. Uncivil discourse to me, is not the discussion of controversial topics. Even if language is used that some people don't find appropriate, it shouldn't be seen as uncivil discourse. Nothing should be done about uncivil discourse except to arrest people using violent means or breaking laws to express their opinion. Uncivil discourse is more problematic whenever people use violent means to disagree with someone such as the recent "protests" at UC Berkeley. The word protest is used lightly because the events at Berkeley more resemble riots than protests. Antifas are running around the streets with hoods and masks so that they can cowardly hide their faces while attacking people and destroying property. Right-wing supporters are decked out in full battle gear while wearing "Make America Great Again" paraphernalia. UC Berkeley, once the shining example of free speech, was turned into a violent battlefield with young immature idiots making a mockery of free speech. What caused the riots was first the planned speech of Milo Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart editor and controversial conservative figurehead. People threatened his life and started tearing apart the surrounding area in protest of his speech. A similar situation occurred whenever Ann Coulter, another conservative speaker, was planned to speak. Obviously we can see that the problem occurs whenever conservative speakers come to campus. This uncivil discourse that targets conservatives is pathetic and only exists because of the liberal snowflakes of Berkeley that cannot handle a different opinion besides their own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/26/milos-appearance-at-berkeley-led-to-riots-he-vows-to-return-this-fall-for-a-week-long-free-speech-event/?utm_term=.847a389f2e50

Codie McKeighen, Hate Speech

Codie McKeighen

Sociology 111

3 May 2017

Hate Speech

Going solely with the definition of hate speech, I would say that it is harmful especially in the wrong audience. I think it is easy to be disgruntled by another person's opinion and we, as humankind, have a hard time not being right or having the last say. We are all going to have an opinion, but we need to learn how to cope and understand how to either keep those opinions to ourselves or how to appreciate another person's differing opinion.

There is however, a fine line between what is okay and what is not okay. It is okay to have an opinion and share that opinion if you feel necessary – after all its one of our rights, by law. It is not okay to use your opinion to spew death threats or as a terrorist act. As a society, we need to learn how to filter, be it personally and through the media. Our media seems to find the most horrifying and worst things to share, very rarely is there something positive going on in the news.

In an article titled "The Freedom to Ignore Hate Speech", published in the Opinion section of the San Francisco Chronicle, Madeleine Change discusses the differing sides on UC Berkeley's campus. Berkeley, known for its student activists supports students of both political views and struggles while its student's try to prepare for finals, along with fighting for their right to free speech. The conflict originated after Berkeley College Republicans invited a woman by the name of Ann Coulter – a conservative – to speak on campus. Rather than prepping for finals and the upcoming school year, admins became apprehensive about the possibility of a protest. The suggestion was to move the speech to the next week when most of the students would not be on campus and prepping for finals during their "dead week". In the end, the school was sued for encroaching on the student's First Amendment rights.

Therefore, I feel as though the problem is not necessarily the hate speech – because everyone is entitled to his or her opinion – but how we react. We can only control how our actions and ourselves. In regards to the article, what the school did to prevent a riot was a smart move on their part but at the same time it limited the group with whom they reached and how their spread their campaign. There is no solution to hate speech, we solely need to control how we react and maybe try to consider others. That is the only change we have complete control over – the change within ourselves.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/The-freedom-to-ignore-hate-speech-11101726.php

mw3:15-445soc 111 GENEVIEVE ALEMAN

UNCIVIL DISCORSE

Genevieve Aleman

MW 3:30-4:45p.m

SOC 111

Uncivil discourse has always been and will probably always be a topic of controversy. Blunt rude comments, offend people, and offended people will cause quite a bit of chaos.

Now, obviously there are instances where it is crystal clear when speech should be punished or not, for example, a co-worker telling an employee "I really want to rape you right now" should absolutely be punished. I would argue that, speech should be punished when it is leading directly to physical harm. For example, a member of a group like the "kkk" saying "I want to hang an African American" should be punished or restricted in some form. Why? Well because an individual that has a high probability of actually hurting an African American as well as a history of doing so is making this statement.

Limiting free speech, in my opinion, is to limit democracy and in the process of this, our reputation of being the "free country" is tarnished. Publically punishing somebody for uncivil discourse sets an example for others that says speaking in opposition, (or thinking in opposition) to a political leader will result in undesired consequences. Too keep a free country and to keep democracy FREE speech and instances of uncivil disclosure are vital. You can not take passion and impulse out of a human without taking their free will. I agree that it (it being uncivil discourse) is not the most tasteful way to express your opinion, but in the end it's your opinion and it is a package deal with freedom.

I think situations such as Ward Churchill and our very own Fresno State professor demonstrate suppression of free speech. This is not the way to handle uncivil discourse. I think the punishment of our Fresno State professor as well as Churchill, results in professors down playing, sugar coating, or even hiding their opinions which ultimately prevents students from being exposed to controversial topics that push them to broaden their perspectives. Opening your mind is a major importance of college. This punishment also sends the message to students and the public that if you don't conform to what's expected you will be shoved out. I agree his words were harsh and I understand why some people feel as though his words were seen as very "inappropriate" to some. But, to me personally, its absolutely absurd to tell a grown adult "no you cant say that", "don't feel that" because its not ok to others. You have the right to your thoughts; they are, after all, YOUR thoughts.

Also I have to say that anybody with a capacity to understand the concepts of sarcasm and exaggeration would also understand that this professor was not about to literally raise money to hang Trump. The probability of him actually hanging trump is nonexistent. I also must say that this professor in no way should be held accountable for the Fresno shooting of four men. I think that is a ridiculous stretch.

Uncivil discourse can be harmful in the sense that it angers people but it is far more dangerous to punish all instances of uncivil discourse. Citizens must be allowed to fully express their opinions, especially regarding politics. If opinions and speech are restricted so will the power of the people.

Katherine Morales - Uncivil Discourse

Uncivil discourse is ubiquitous in our nation and particularly rampant on the internet. Many of us hide behind our keyboards and let our feelings known, no matter how crass they may be. Our country is split into many different factions: raider fans/49er fans, diet coke drinkers/regular coke drinkers etc.. Two factions, however, Democrats and Republicans are the most prominent. Especially in recent years, the interactions between these two factions have become nothing short of a farce. I watch my government at work and I am ashamed. They take money in exchange for governmental influence. They strip healthcare from millions for the sake of tax cuts. They change district lines so they'll be reelected into a seat they do not deserve. They argue, they fight and they look foolish. If the people that constitute my government cannot act civilly, how will their people act civilly? We too argue, fight and think less of those around us. In my opinion, uncivil discourse keeps us from growing. We are so busy fighting an illusory fight, democrat vs republican, that we cannot see passed our "opponent" and hold our government accountable for its actions. This is harmful to our country.

For example, a couple of weeks ago a riot ensued in Berkeley, California. An anti-trump rally ran into a pro-trump rally and chaos ensued. People made makeshift weapons out of sticks with the intent to harm one another. I was disappointed when I read the news that morning. What was accomplished? Nothing was accomplished. Thirteen people were arrested and many more were injured. This like this do not have to happen.

If we can only not participate in uncivil discourse, we can make real change. We can put people into office that will actually represent our wishes. If we don't have label "Democrat" or "Republican" we can actually look at an issue and use our own judgment, not a judgment that has been predetermined by us. I think we need to look past party lines in order to make change. We cannot afford for our country to be "us" vs "them" anymore, for there is too much suffering in the world to be distracted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/protesters-arrested-as-pro-trump-and-anti-trump-rallies-clash-in-berkeley/