'You Also Have The Right To Tell A Bigot What You Think'
APL&C-Period 1
21 August 2012
You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think
By Leonard Pitts
S
Who is the speaker?
Who is the voice that tells the story?
The speaker is a syndicated columnist, a writer versed in and paid for expressing his opinion in an interesting, thought-provoking way. He is educated yet down to earth and not a bombastic or over-inflated or even lover of elevated lexicon or writing style. He is representative of the majority of educated US citizens.
O
What is the occasion?
What are the time, place, and setting of the piece?
The setting seems the present day USA. The piece is thus contemporary. The context is an America soiled by random ignorant bigots and the all too abundant populous of “It’s OK”-sayers who deftly shrug and say, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” when hate is openly voiced. The piece was written in response to others feeling it is OK for others to voice racist opinions/beliefs—specifically an occasion when a news program polled musicians who thought it was OK for Eminem to use hateful anti-gay lyrics.
A …show more content…
Who is the audience?
To whom is the piece directed?
The audience is the citizens of the US. I could see a smile on the face of the author at the sight of some neo-Nazi or Eminem reading it. It is most specifically aimed at the silent majority, the “It’s OK”-sayers who stand by and do/say nothing in the face of ignorance and hate.
P
What is the
purpose?
What is the purpose or reason this piece was written?
The purpose is to express an opinion: Sure everyone has and should have the right to say whatever, even nasty, gnarly hate-filled racist words; but I (we) have the right and even moral obligation perhaps to tell them they are hate-filled, ignorant malcontents. His purpose extends from expression to persuasion and a want to instill in those hiding behind excuses of free speech support a sense of moral pride and backbone which may inspire them to voice their own beliefs words the next time they are confronted by hateful speech.
S
What is the subject?
What are the general topics/and/or/ideas contained in the text?
Free speech is the heart of Pitts’ piece. Who has the right, is it limitless and unrestricted, or are their inherent boundaries not to be crossed are topical questions. More importantly, the piece indirectly argues against hatred and bigotry while attempting to maintain an open support for free speech in all arenas and environments.
T
What is the tone?
What is the attitude or emotional characteristics present in the piece?
The tone is down-to-earth, admonishing, friendly with a small bite. Animated and slightly angry, perhaps frustrated. More wry than sarcastic, but quick light humor with an edge. It’s like listening to a coked-up actor giving a speech too fast. Dennis Leary-ish. Fast, humorous, but not laughable, very serious. There is real passion behind the words and moments of verbal slapping but mostly the piece remains reigned in somehow. Very soap-boxish. Political talk-show host-ish, but not quite as extreme.
1. What is a claim?
2. What is Pitts’ claim?
3. What reasons are given in support?
4. What about the argument is mature reasoning?
5. What can be improved or is lacking?
21 August 2012
You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What You Think
By Leonard Pitts
S
Who is the speaker?
Who is the voice that tells the story?
The speaker is a syndicated columnist, a writer versed in and paid for expressing his opinion in an interesting, thought-provoking way. He is educated yet down to earth and not a bombastic or over-inflated or even lover of elevated lexicon or writing style. He is representative of the majority of educated US citizens.
O
What is the occasion?
What are the time, place, and setting of the piece?
The setting seems the present day USA. The piece is thus contemporary. The context is an America soiled by random ignorant bigots and the all too abundant populous of “It’s OK”-sayers who deftly shrug and say, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” when hate is openly voiced. The piece was written in response to others feeling it is OK for others to voice racist opinions/beliefs—specifically an occasion when a news program polled musicians who thought it was OK for Eminem to use hateful anti-gay lyrics.
A …show more content…
Who is the audience?
To whom is the piece directed?
The audience is the citizens of the US. I could see a smile on the face of the author at the sight of some neo-Nazi or Eminem reading it. It is most specifically aimed at the silent majority, the “It’s OK”-sayers who stand by and do/say nothing in the face of ignorance and hate.
P
What is the
purpose?
What is the purpose or reason this piece was written?
The purpose is to express an opinion: Sure everyone has and should have the right to say whatever, even nasty, gnarly hate-filled racist words; but I (we) have the right and even moral obligation perhaps to tell them they are hate-filled, ignorant malcontents. His purpose extends from expression to persuasion and a want to instill in those hiding behind excuses of free speech support a sense of moral pride and backbone which may inspire them to voice their own beliefs words the next time they are confronted by hateful speech.
S
What is the subject?
What are the general topics/and/or/ideas contained in the text?
Free speech is the heart of Pitts’ piece. Who has the right, is it limitless and unrestricted, or are their inherent boundaries not to be crossed are topical questions. More importantly, the piece indirectly argues against hatred and bigotry while attempting to maintain an open support for free speech in all arenas and environments.
T
What is the tone?
What is the attitude or emotional characteristics present in the piece?
The tone is down-to-earth, admonishing, friendly with a small bite. Animated and slightly angry, perhaps frustrated. More wry than sarcastic, but quick light humor with an edge. It’s like listening to a coked-up actor giving a speech too fast. Dennis Leary-ish. Fast, humorous, but not laughable, very serious. There is real passion behind the words and moments of verbal slapping but mostly the piece remains reigned in somehow. Very soap-boxish. Political talk-show host-ish, but not quite as extreme.
1. What is a claim?
2. What is Pitts’ claim?
3. What reasons are given in support?
4. What about the argument is mature reasoning?
5. What can be improved or is lacking?