Louder With Crowder: A Rhetorical Analysis
Louder with Crowder is a conservative speaker who mainly provides podcasts about controversial topics in modern day society. (Louder with Crowder) In this particular podcast, Crowder tries to persuade his audience that hate speech does not exist. (Louder with Crowder) From my own experience in the United States, I believe the opinion to be remarkably unpopular which may even lead towards trouble and sanctions within academia. This leads me to believe that the opinion is thought provoking which is an idea that many disapprove but is different from the current norm.
The podcaster’s structure is based on providing the definition of the hate speech, he then transitions towards to how the definition contradicts the purpose of its use which he then
shows the devastating effects of embargoing hate speech on people. Many of the sources that he uses are coming from a credible news organization to define what the topic is and how it affects society, these news organizations tend to be lenient towards the left. Their credibility is based on writers trying to present the news rather than their own opinion. Crowder uses many tactics towards making his audience want to listen. He is able to reach out towards audience with his high enthusiasm and energetic sense of humor, while doing so he is still able to keep a good posture to seriously present his ideas. Despite the seriousness of the topic, he keeps the podcast funny by joking about how people takes hate speech towards extremes. He has successfully made me want to listen to his podcast. He tends to use sources that are from the opposition side hence the left to define what the topic is and how they define it themselves. The podcaster is then able to give many counter arguments towards hate speech of who gets to decide what is hate speech, what are the limitations and protection of hate speech under the 1st amendment.
His effect on the listeners would be that he is able to successfully make people understand that people that claim hate speech is real are being unrationed rather than use it for a good cause, they use it to silence political opponents.
My group’s podcast was similar to his in the sense of the overall positivity in trying to be funny while speaking about a serious topic. We also share the same idea of defining what the topic is leading towards effects of the topic on society. Despite the many similarities, he is able to cite more sources and make the other side look bad for trying to silence people and he is far more persuasive compared to us.
The podcaster’s structure is based on providing the definition of the hate speech, he then transitions towards to how the definition contradicts the purpose of its use which he then
shows the devastating effects of embargoing hate speech on people. Many of the sources that he uses are coming from a credible news organization to define what the topic is and how it affects society, these news organizations tend to be lenient towards the left. Their credibility is based on writers trying to present the news rather than their own opinion. Crowder uses many tactics towards making his audience want to listen. He is able to reach out towards audience with his high enthusiasm and energetic sense of humor, while doing so he is still able to keep a good posture to seriously present his ideas. Despite the seriousness of the topic, he keeps the podcast funny by joking about how people takes hate speech towards extremes. He has successfully made me want to listen to his podcast. He tends to use sources that are from the opposition side hence the left to define what the topic is and how they define it themselves. The podcaster is then able to give many counter arguments towards hate speech of who gets to decide what is hate speech, what are the limitations and protection of hate speech under the 1st amendment.
His effect on the listeners would be that he is able to successfully make people understand that people that claim hate speech is real are being unrationed rather than use it for a good cause, they use it to silence political opponents.
My group’s podcast was similar to his in the sense of the overall positivity in trying to be funny while speaking about a serious topic. We also share the same idea of defining what the topic is leading towards effects of the topic on society. Despite the many similarities, he is able to cite more sources and make the other side look bad for trying to silence people and he is far more persuasive compared to us.