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

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.

Brittany Clegg Uncivil discourse through politics

Brittany Clegg

Argumentative essay – uncivil discourse

5/7/2107

Sociology 3 – Monday 11am

One of the simplest ways to talk about current events which represent uncivil discourse would be to talk about the Donald Trump tweets. The article from a web news site titled "Donald Trump's most controversial tweets since becoming president" showcase all the negative and careless ideas that he is putting on the internet for the whole world to see. These comments are not how world leaders usually respond to situations and, instead, instill fear and uncertainty into the minds of both the nation and the world. The article outlines some of the most controversial tweets that Trump has tweeted in his first 100 days as President of the United States. The first example is his tweet which read "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" Not only was this in the middle of the night, but there was no solid evidence to prove this claim. Another one of the tweets reads "I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy" which is very controversial to the claims that he made during his campaign where women were constantly degraded. Many of his comments contradict each other which makes his presidency that much more questionable.

In my opinion, uncivil discourse is extremely harmful. Aspects of uncivil discourse such as hate speech are the very thing that is tearing the country apart, making others think it is okay to hate on others which unravels in a huge chain reaction. It is true that hate speech cannot be completely banned for that would be violating the right to free speech, but it should not be advocated by people such as the President of the United States or people running for that position. If there is any hope for the rebuilding of the nation and solving problems of inequality and race, it is through the advocating of open-mindedness and acceptance among all people. This is what will bring people together, not being uncivil with one another. So, it should not be banned, but it should be largely frowned upon.

Article URL: https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-most-controversial-tweets-since-becoming-president-7709406

            

Japneet Gill Uncivil Discourse

Japneet Gill

Professor Kubal

8 May 2017

                                                           Uncivil Discourse

Uncivil discourse has become a topic of great controversy over the years. The term refers to communication of thoughts by words, talk, and/or conversation; however, "uncivil" is an ambiguous term and can refer to deviant behavior or disrespectful means of communication. Uncivil discourse is bound to occur since everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. Whether that be in politics, religious matters, education, or any other particular topic. Recently, since Donald Trump has become President of the United States there have been sparking controversies regarding his capability to hold such a high power position. Many people hold opposite stances regarding this subject, but there is a fine line that needs to be drawn between voicing your opinion and threatening or promoting violent actions towards another individual's or group's lives. The First Amendment protects an individual's freedom of speech from government intrusion, however, it does not protect from intrusion by other citizens. This is why one should be cautious of what they post and how they present themselves on social media outlets to prevent violent speech encounters. Uncivil discourse continues to be a rising issue, a possible solution to condemn violence occurring from it is to learn how to effectively express oneself when communicating. 

Uncivil discourse is a growing concern in the United States especially since there have been many advancements in technology. Emerging technology and social media outlets have led to several online audiences and thus have added a new dimension to this topic. Unfortunately, this expansion has led to misinformation and anger towards statements that conflict with one's own ideologies and thought process. As citizens, we should respect the First Amendment of the Constitution protecting each individual's freedom of speech. However, we should not tolerate people's ignorant and hatred-filled comments which could then potentially lead to violent actions. This is the point at which uncivil discourse becomes harmful for society as a whole. Taking the example of the Fresno State professor into consideration, had he discussed his opinion about President Donald Trump's affirmative action and political stances in a class discussion and supported his opinion, it would have aligned with the University's policies regarding free speech. However, the professor made threatening comments towards President Trump on a social media site (Twitter) with no justifications regarding his viewpoints and statements. Thus, the question of student and campus safety came into question. While there is no direct way to solve this problem of uncivil discourse, a possible solution can be censoring violent comments on social media sites.

In the article, "An Election Unworthy of America", the issue the author is discussing is how uncivil discourse has drastically increased since the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The author discusses how a large number of voters responded to the presidential election's results with unbelievable vulgarity. This amount of vulgarity was unseen in past elections and in political history of the United States of America. Even during each candidate's campaign trails, there were situations in rally's and protests which involved people openly discussing their viewpoints and resulting in violent encounters with the police and amongst the public. Such acts of violence included a firebombing of a GOP office, threatening white powder sent to Clinton's campaign headquarters, and attacks on Trump supporters eventually resulting in a riot. Other instances involved burning and vandalizing political parties' campaign posters. The most common being numerous death threats that the candidate's received. All of these incidents further displayed the public's disapproval towards the candidates of the election. The author concludes stating that despite the Constitution protecting the people's right to express their beliefs freely, the people are promoting violent acts. This cannot be solved by the government simply stepping in and taking action, but rather, by the people and the media who further exploit uncivil discourse. The reasons the author gives for this conclusion are verbal harassments becoming increasingly popular and the media displaying one-sided and uncensored information regarding such topics. Uncivil discourse will remain a growing issue if the people do not address their concerns in a non-violent way of communication and learn how to express their thoughts in an effective manner. 

Works Cited

Geraghty, Jim. "An Election Unworthy of America." National Review, 24 Oct. 2016. Accessed 4 May 2017.