In Defense of Dangerous Ideas In the short essay “In Defense of Dangerous Ideas”, the author, Steven Pinker, argues that we must be free to express “dangerous ideas.” These ideas can be anything remotely controversial; making a variety of people uncomfortable or offended. According to Pinker, there is a certain way that society should function. He often refers to the ones in charge, the ones asking the questions, as “intellectually responsible.” As for the rest of society, they are simply the ones offended by these questions. In essence, Steven Pinker uses academic disciplines to argue that important ideas need to be aired and discussed, no matter the discomfort. Although I cannot agree with him completely, I do not believe that it is morally …show more content…
Given this particular statement, Pinker refers to himself as “we.” However, he frequently makes himself sound superior, leading to the assumption that he deserves to be grouped among the “intellectually responsible” people. For example, Pinker says, “Scientists, scholars, and writers are members of a privileged elite” (Pinker 368). Being the author of this short essay and many other printings, he is a writer. Therefore, under the circumstances listed, he groups himself with the “privileged elite.” Even though he may be very well educated and maybe even smarter than many people, I do not think that anyone, no matter their intelligence, should try to make others feel less important. Overall, Steven Pinker views himself as an exclusive member of society who has the power to be in control of those less intelligent than …show more content…
In our current society, this is not an incorrect statement. There will always be people in this world who fit the description that Pinker infers. Nonetheless, that does not allow anyone to come to the conclusion that we can just group people together and tell them that they are inferior to us. With this intention, Pinker tells his audience, “We know that the world is full of malevolent and callous people who will use any pretext to justify their bigotry or destructiveness” (Pinker 368). Granted that there are many people who will not tolerate those with differing opinions, there are also many people who are willing to take those differing opinions into consideration. If we as a society cannot discuss important topics without getting offended, how will we ever continue to develop? This only further proves my argument that Pinker has one opinion on how society should be. He wants everyone to be grouped into exclusive groups and those specific groups become very generalized which does not allow for a lot of individuality. Fortunately, there is a lot to be learned from each individual and unique opinion in our society and the freedom to express yourself should never be taken away from
Silence — the sound of quiet, the state of mind, the lack of meaning — all these pertain to its definition. Communication is expanding, noise is increasing, music is becoming more obtainable as people search desperately for a moment of peace or a breeze of silence. As the scarcity of physical silence increases, its value as a rare commodity increases as well. The idiom “Silence is golden” may perhaps only grow closer to reality as time passes, as exemplified by the white noise machines or silent fans entering the market and fictionalized in Kevin Brockmeier’s short story, “The Year of Silence.” In light of this, Brockmeier explores the value of silence and noise in his story without putting one above the other. Through strange clues and hidden
In “Defending Against the Indefensible,” author and professor Neil Postman proposes that language has been abused in modern society by people manipulating it and brainwashing the others. Hence, he suggests seven elements for critical intelligence that can help with identifying and avoiding the manipulative use of language: definition, questions, simple words, metaphor, reification, style and tone, and media.
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
This source supplies my paper with more evidence of how freedom of speech is in a dangerous place. American has always stood by freedom of speech, and to see how social media platforms try to manipulate and take off as the choose to increase slight bias is unpleasant. The article establishes a worry to the fellow readers that hold freedom of speech so high and that it is at risk. The article manages to explain why freedom of speech is in danger, and why there should be no limits to free speech.
In the editorial “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examine the political correctness on college campuses and how it may be hurting students’ mental health. They explain by allowing campuses to discuss words, ideas, and subjects that can cause discomfort or give offense can provide positive attributes like helping students to produce better arguments and more productive discussions over differences. Does Lukianoff and Haidt provide sufficient evidence about how college campuses should raise attention about the need to balance freedom of speech to help students in their future and education to lead the reader to agree with their argument? The answer is yes,
The quote by Pinker that states, “Such hypocrisy is a human universal,” is a way of saying that people will always be hypocrites. Hypocrisy is in human nature that we can say or want one thing, but do the complete opposite. It has been this way for years among human beings and it never changing. Pinker is not trying to be critical when saying this line in any way. He is simply stating the truth in human nature and what we do on an everyday basis. In my opinion, Pinker is completely correct in his words about human nature. Humans have always been hypocrites and it is something most of us cannot control for many reasons. He is just one of the few people to openly state his feelings about human’s habits. No human can honestly say that they have never been a hypocrite during their lifetime. Many people do not even realize when we are being a hypocrite because it is the type of world we grew up in. Hypocrisy is among us and there is no way of changing it because we say we want it to end, but would never actually try and end
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
The censorship of ideas is seen, not only on American soil, but in other countries, both now and in history. In a world where governments are to be respected, to think in a contradictory manner is anything but safe. All throughout history, ideological governmen...
Northrop Frye is one of the most influential literary critics of his time, and today. Indeed, one of his most applicable articles was published in 1986, titled, “Don’t You Think It’s Time to Start Thinking?”. He uses several key points to argue that most of society does not think critically and that the skills are purposefully not being taught to keep society compliant. This article, which criticizes how students are taught to think, is still very relevant today. While some may argue that the curriculum has changed over time to incorporate more of critical thinking, that is still not the case. Frye’s article is pertinent even today, especially with the inception of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test. Society still encourages reading
In “Defending Against the Indefensible” by Neil Postman, he proposes a different way of viewing the English language. He says that our civilization is being manipulated by the ambiguity in English, and students are most easily affected by the school environment. Thus, he proposes seven key ideas that students should remember in order to avoid the dangers and loopholes that twist the original meaning of statements.
Judy blume use these Rhetorical Strategies in a virtuous way to guide her audience threw every thought process every emotion in the article , every thought that makes you think and reflect on what you just read and how it makes you feel and see society has what it really is. Blume article is really well write, she knows what say that is not to over the top to come off bitter and rude against the censors. blume is asking us to re think the way in which is when something is unknown and controversial to us, that we would shy away but instead, take it head on and embrace it immerse our self’s in it and explain it to our younger generation and educate them on the unknown to so can bark on their own quest and expand their minds.
It is obvious to me that to wish to examine something is not to condone it. Yet when somebody tries to ask questions about taboo subjects today, they are assumed to be sympathetic to the subject, maybe even a little deranged, and certainly suspect. They become an outcast, and this coming adrift from the herd is also something which many fear. Many say better to be seen to be part of the lynch-mob than to become its quarry but these are the people who don't have the strength of character to even attempt to be the quarry.
I myself agree with a lot of what Mill says. We do need to let people express themselves even when what they say and do angers us. For what we say and do my anger them just the same, and no one would like to be silenced. Tolerance is a virtue that we all need in our everyday lives. But the problem is implementing this into a society that preaches free speech, but doesn't always back it up. People here don't want to hear those who oppose. Though we don't directly stifle their voice, we don't take the time to hear what they have to say. Now isn't that in the same ballpark as suppressing someone's ideas, not taking the time to hear the ideas and to form educated opinions of them. "If a tree fall in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Wouldn't that same thing apply to someone talking and nobody listening?
“Majoring In Fear” by Mark Shiffman analyzes a certain shift in the attitudes of today’s youth. He claims that students are choosing more practical pathways out of fear, sacrificing their genuine passions and interests in order to attain a safer career. Shiffman believes this sacrifice is detrimental to students because a liberal arts education catalyzes introspection and spiritual growth. By leaving behind opportunities for such growth, the youth of today lacks the capacity and resources for reflection on their lives. Shiffman further illustrates this idea with the claim that students who initially show an interest in the humanities later choose to further their education in Economics or Spanish (Shiffman 5). He recognizes that students forge
"What is at stake here it the right to read and be exposed to controversial, thoughts and language. The most effective antidote to the poison of mindless orthodoxy is ready access to a broad sweep of ideas and philosophies. There is no danger in such exposure. The danger is mind control especially when that control is exercised by a few over the majority" (qtd. in Hunt