Jon Lovett The Culture Of Shut Up Analysis
In the article “The Culture of Shut Up,” author Jon Lovett ponders the current state of public dialogue in the age of the Internet. Lovett is a Los Angeles based writer and a former speech writer for President Barack Obama (13). The author suggests that the internet, which provides for exceptional access to diverse public speech, will inevitably include speech that is offensive. Lovett’s opinion is that people must resist the urge to punish such speech, if people want to allow a range of voices to be heard and makes his argument majorly effective by using humor and providing popular examples of where people have been told “to shut up”.
The writer opinion is that protecting freedom of speech is now up to people of the Internet age. As institutional gatekeepers lose their power to control information, it becomes easier for self- appointed individual gatekeepers to step in. The common result is barbarous accusations and calls for an apology in response to online content. The authors …show more content…
opinion is that this circumstance threatens to seriously discourage people’s willingness to engage in open and constructive conversation. It is obvious that the Internet has definitely increased people’s freedom to communicate. But like all freedoms, this one requires everyone’s diligence. Lovett says, “the Internet … is basically the cause of, and solution to, everything that plagues our culture” (15).
The Internet provides a growing platform for inaccurate, untrue and questionable information. On the upside, the miracle of Internet connectivity speeds peoples access to the information, knowledge and insights that contribute to humanities social and intellectual evolution. It also helps sweep aside information gatekeepers in positions of power whose “arrogant . . . unimaginative and shortsighted” approach to information has traditionally promoted their own interests and attitudes toward control (Lovett 16). Lovett states that “the right to free speech begins and ends with the First Amendment, but there is a vast middle where our freedom of speech is protected by our capacity to listen and accept that people disagree” (18). The First Amendment’s protections have always put a great deal of responsibility in the hands of the people and now they have more of that power
now. A technique Lovett use to make his argument more effective is using humor to invoke the readers’ emotions. One example of this is when he writes “that’s an exaggeration, of course. The Internet didn’t cause Donald Trump, and it certainly can’t solve Donald Trump. The way you defeat Donald Trump is by getting the ring of power into the hands of a pure soul, a hobbit, say, and that hobbit must journey to Mount Doom and release the ring into its fires” (Lovett 15). This humor appeals to the audience and makes them laugh and create an emotional link with the author.
Another technique the writer uses is to support his argument is providing popular examples of where people have been told to shut up to the audience. Some of examples of this is when Lovett writes, “Here’s a list of some other people who were told to shut up, off the top of my head: The Chick-fil-A guy was told to shut up about gay people … Paula Deen was told to shut up by everyone because her stuff was racist and crazy… Richard Sherman was told to shut up about winning while being black, I guess” (16). He uses a logical approach by providing hard evidence to his readers to make part of his argument very persuasive. Lovett’s argument that people must resist the urge to punish offensive speech, if people want to allow a range of voices to be heard is very compelling. The author makes his argument remarkably powerful by not only using an abundance of humor, but by also providing popular examples of where people have been told “to shut up”. The writer ability to appeal to the readers in an emotional and logical way makes his article very persuasive. People have to not only to respect the power of their own speech, but also to respect that same power in the hands of people we despise.
The writer opinion is that protecting freedom of speech is now up to people of the Internet age. As institutional gatekeepers lose their power to control information, it becomes easier for self- appointed individual gatekeepers to step in. The common result is barbarous accusations and calls for an apology in response to online content. The authors …show more content…
opinion is that this circumstance threatens to seriously discourage people’s willingness to engage in open and constructive conversation. It is obvious that the Internet has definitely increased people’s freedom to communicate. But like all freedoms, this one requires everyone’s diligence. Lovett says, “the Internet … is basically the cause of, and solution to, everything that plagues our culture” (15).
The Internet provides a growing platform for inaccurate, untrue and questionable information. On the upside, the miracle of Internet connectivity speeds peoples access to the information, knowledge and insights that contribute to humanities social and intellectual evolution. It also helps sweep aside information gatekeepers in positions of power whose “arrogant . . . unimaginative and shortsighted” approach to information has traditionally promoted their own interests and attitudes toward control (Lovett 16). Lovett states that “the right to free speech begins and ends with the First Amendment, but there is a vast middle where our freedom of speech is protected by our capacity to listen and accept that people disagree” (18). The First Amendment’s protections have always put a great deal of responsibility in the hands of the people and now they have more of that power
now. A technique Lovett use to make his argument more effective is using humor to invoke the readers’ emotions. One example of this is when he writes “that’s an exaggeration, of course. The Internet didn’t cause Donald Trump, and it certainly can’t solve Donald Trump. The way you defeat Donald Trump is by getting the ring of power into the hands of a pure soul, a hobbit, say, and that hobbit must journey to Mount Doom and release the ring into its fires” (Lovett 15). This humor appeals to the audience and makes them laugh and create an emotional link with the author.
Another technique the writer uses is to support his argument is providing popular examples of where people have been told to shut up to the audience. Some of examples of this is when Lovett writes, “Here’s a list of some other people who were told to shut up, off the top of my head: The Chick-fil-A guy was told to shut up about gay people … Paula Deen was told to shut up by everyone because her stuff was racist and crazy… Richard Sherman was told to shut up about winning while being black, I guess” (16). He uses a logical approach by providing hard evidence to his readers to make part of his argument very persuasive. Lovett’s argument that people must resist the urge to punish offensive speech, if people want to allow a range of voices to be heard is very compelling. The author makes his argument remarkably powerful by not only using an abundance of humor, but by also providing popular examples of where people have been told “to shut up”. The writer ability to appeal to the readers in an emotional and logical way makes his article very persuasive. People have to not only to respect the power of their own speech, but also to respect that same power in the hands of people we despise.