Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Critique Essay

    Uploaded by

    Asmara Noor
    Jon Lovett argues that Americans have become too quick to criticize others and tell them to "shut up" when they express unpopular or offensive opinions. He claims that people are increasingly afraid to voice their views due to this culture of criticism. However, others argue that Lovett fails to distinguish between personal attacks and calls for accountability from marginalized groups facing discrimination. While Lovett advocates for respectful discourse, critics say he underestimates how activism from these groups has helped drive social progress. Overall, the debate centers on balancing free speech with inclusion and challenging harmful or biased views.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Critique Essay

    Uploaded by

    Asmara Noor
    96 views5 pages
    Jon Lovett argues that Americans have become too quick to criticize others and tell them to "shut up" when they express unpopular or offensive opinions. He claims that people are increasingly afraid to voice their views due to this culture of criticism. However, others argue that Lovett fails to distinguish between personal attacks and calls for accountability from marginalized groups facing discrimination. While Lovett advocates for respectful discourse, critics say he underestimates how activism from these groups has helped drive social progress. Overall, the debate centers on balancing free speech with inclusion and challenging harmful or biased views.

    Original Description:

    c

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jon Lovett argues that Americans have become too quick to criticize others and tell them to "shut up" when they express unpopular or offensive opinions. He claims that people are increasingly afraid to voice their views due to this culture of criticism. However, others argue that Lovett fails to distinguish between personal attacks and calls for accountability from marginalized groups facing discrimination. While Lovett advocates for respectful discourse, critics say he underestimates how activism from these groups has helped drive social progress. Overall, the debate centers on balancing free speech with inclusion and challenging harmful or biased views.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views5 pages

    Critique Essay

    Uploaded by

    Asmara Noor
    Jon Lovett argues that Americans have become too quick to criticize others and tell them to "shut up" when they express unpopular or offensive opinions. He claims that people are increasingly afraid to voice their views due to this culture of criticism. However, others argue that Lovett fails to distinguish between personal attacks and calls for accountability from marginalized groups facing discrimination. While Lovett advocates for respectful discourse, critics say he underestimates how activism from these groups has helped drive social progress. Overall, the debate centers on balancing free speech with inclusion and challenging harmful or biased views.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    The Atlantic's Site, the Culture of Shut up Critique

    Step-1: Summary of Lovetts Main Idea:

    In an article titled "The Culture of Shut Up," by Jon Lovett, a former speechwriter for

    President Barack Obama, underlines the significance of the right to speak freely for Americans.

    Lovett expresses his supposition by specifying the importance of technology in current culture.

    The Americans of any age select social media to pass on their opinions to keep away from physical

    conflict from the peers; but, some people react with negative criticisms instead of admiring words.

    Subsequently, individuals are more averse to express their views in dread that they will get

    criticized for their opinions. Lovett claims, "We have to figure out how to live with the noise and

    accept the noise even the noise is offensive, even when noise is stupid, even the noise is risky.

    Lovett likewise expresses that Americans from opposite sides need to shun arguing with

    each other, and rather, be forced to achieve middle ground with the competing candidates. If the

    Americans neglect to get middle ground with each other, they will hush up about their

    contemplations. The point of this article is that nobody should feel compelled to refrain from

    claiming for what they have faith in. The theme is important because the use of the significant

    change is right now a controversial subject. In fact, during advanced society, individuals are

    unequipped for voicing their conclusions without being assaulted by others. Lovett expressed that

    individuals are turning out to be excessively uncaring about others' opinions; regardless, there have

    been different situations where people have been required to quit from their positions at work

    because of standing what they are agreeable to.

    Step-2: Lovetts Strategies of LOGOS:

    Lovett underpins this claim by listing famous people who have endured after receiving

    pessimistic reaction because of voicing their views to their peers. For instance, Lovett expressed,
    "In the previous week, the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was compelled to resign over his

    provision for the Proposition 8, the law for anti-gay marriage which passed in a 2008 California

    referendum before it was struck down later thru the courts." If individuals figured out how to

    acknowledge other persons' views, then fewer people will lose their employments. In this article,

    Lovett utilizes the Freedom law and expresses that every party is not permitted to avoid the

    opposite side from expressing their opinions.

    Lovett expressed, "regardless of how respectable the purpose, it is demand for similarity

    that motivates individuals on all sides of an argument to police one another rather than contend

    and persuade each other." The quote demonstrates that Lovett is agreeable to permitting others to

    practice their first amendment rights. On the off chance that two adversaries have a similar aim to

    meet up and hear out each other's opinions, then issues would get determined productively.

    Lovett conflates two issues: 1) telling people to shut up and 2) brutal personal

    attacks/self-righteous calls for the apology. I dont think anyone wants to defend vicious personal

    attacks as being integral to the system; they can more or less go, and even be banned outright,

    without much worry about institutional damage. But since when are calls for apology equivalent

    to telling other people to shut up?

    Lovetts interpretation of shutting up is as follows.

    Heres a list of some other people who were told to shut up, off the top of my head:

    The Chick-fil-A guy was said to shut up about gay people.

    Paula Deen was said to shut up by everyone because her stuff was racist and crazy.

    Stephen Colbert was told to shut up about satire, I think?

    The Duck Dynasty guy was said to shut up about gay people.
    Step-3: Lovetts Failure of LOGOS:

    Lovett is falling into classic triangulation: you people demanding apologies are wrong

    because the people hurling insults at you are wrong and since the whole thing is bad overall, both

    sides are bad and need to be put down. Maybe thats true; I dont think it is, namely because if

    these rocks are important instrumentally in any way I hope its to allow marginalized groups a

    platform to point out discrimination and biases against them. So, saying that a gay Mozilla

    employee who feels uncomfortable with their boss is doing nothing more than shouting shut up

    by publicly announcing his or her discomfort, youre completely undermining the activism that

    has been pretty successful recently.

    But even if Lovetts reformulated triangulation were correct, even if we need to end the

    cycle once and for all for the sake of humanity or whatever, hes completely wrong to say that in

    this story the ones who are so-called outraged are the people who are yelling or devaluing the

    conversation. Because unless you want to tell me why the substance of their complaints are

    unmeritorious without the annoying responses from mean people and the media that inevitably

    result, I dont see why these activists should stop doing what theyve been doing so well. It sounds

    to me like youre telling them to shut up.

    So, Lovett succeeds in constructing a strong argument & shifts the goalposts beautifully:

    by telling people that we have a Culture of Shut Up, hes invoking the peaceful and respectful

    political discourse that many of us are always seeking. But, he tells his audience that the ones

    responsible for our drowning in bullshit are the outraged minorities, who, ironically, need to shut

    up so that the cycle of outrage media coverage can be put to rest. What it seems like then is that

    the rocks are not working anyway, that the same people in charge, namely the media and

    neoliberal institutions responsible for deciding what conversations do and dont gain traction, i.e.
    the elders, are still successful in suppressing dissent among the ranks via co-opting the social

    influence the rocks have. At that point, I am not sure if telling the self-righteous dissenters to

    stop taking action is all that much of an issue.


    Reference:

    Lovett, Jon. The Culture of Shut up. The Atlantic. 7 April 2014: 5-6. Web.

    You might also like