Month: October 2018

Revenge. Punishment. Discipline. Are these three qualities synonymous? Do they coincide with one another? While most would argue that they are all connected, they would likewise be able to acknowledge differences between them as well. Which expresses morality? Are they all necessary? Again, questions like these evoke the inevitability of compare and contrast, and notice how I emphasized “contrast.” While all are similar in that they are often the result of some unfortunate, condemned behavior or action, they all differ somehow.

Revenge: “to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit.”

Punishment: “a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.”

Discipline: “punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.”

Analyzing all three definitions, similarities are extracted such as the prevalence of “punishment” in both revenge and discipline, “inflicted” in both punishment and discipline, and all three explaining that it is in effect to wrongful doings. However, in the midst of similarity, is distinctiveness. For instance, while discipline presents its definition with positive connotation through “correction and training,” revenge utilizes negative connotation by explaining that the spirit of punishment is “resentful” or “vindictive.” Thus, based on ethics, discipline and appropriate punishment evidently deem the most ethical results of misconduct, while revenge deems impractical and immoral. However, before the establishments of prisons, revenge was justified instead through the death penalty.

Although still around today, the death penalty proved to be unethical and indecent by innumerable amounts of people throughout society, justifying it now in specific states and for the most heinous crimes, most markedly, murder. However, dating back to the 1600s, the death penalty was especially prevalent and utilized for miniscule crimes such as stealing valueless things and trading with certain colonies. Acclaimed for succumbing to Britain’s influence in regard to the death penalty, America used it frequently and indecently in the public eye for many years.

It was only until the nineteenth century that American citizens’ proclamation of ethics were heard by legislature and laws began to get passed. Although the death penalty wasn’t abolished completely, laws such as eliminating the death from the public eye was passed, creating correctional facilities, and eliminating it from certain states were all accomplished. However, despite its participation still today in 2018, revolting methods of killing deteriorated, replaced by lethal injections to increase the morality of the deed. Additionally, people continue to fight for complete abomination.

Arguing that the death penalty is mere revenge rather than appropriate punishment, protests ensue. Similar to the fight against abortion, mass amounts of people implore ethical reevaluation by proclaiming murder.  

 Differing from controversies such as abortion however, the death penalty is hypocritical in that killing killers isn’t justifiable, it is just mere revenge. How does that make sense? For instance, isn’t the purpose of punishment and discipline as defined by the dictionary a penalty by means of “correction and training”? That won’t work if we abolish the offender completely. And then where is the penalty for the individuals participating in the killing through the death penalty?

It is understandable that people will always have contrasting views on controversial issues, particularly the death penalty. But while costly, immoral, and unnecessary due to the harsh environment of prisons, views regarding the death penalty have wavered astronomically since the first documented execution in the 1600s. As philosophical views remain prevalent and other controversies emerge, I predict more shift in public opinion of the death penalty and more laws passed because of it.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty

As common as rhetoric is utilized for positive awareness and communication, negative rhetoric is likewise prevalent in today’s society, skyrocketing after President Trump’s inauguration into office. Commonly, the presentment of negative rhetoric takes place during riots and protests due to the media attention they typically get, but with the prominence of social media and its mass participation, it has become a commonplace for alt-right groups and hateful intentions to be showcased for vast persuasion.

Interestingly, the Proud Boys have been debated in class in regard to whether or not they should be forbidden from certains bars and restaurants. This discussion is interesting, however, as they undoubtedly are representative of an alt-right group, yet deny it and deny similar accusations. On the basis thereof, founder, Gavin McInnes, impassively states that the entailments of the group merely include beer as he states that the group’s participation is representative of “a men’s club that meets about once a month to drink beer,” while also claiming to represent western pride as a “Western chauvinist” group rather than white, male supremacy.

Although most people don’t agree with the ideologies that hate groups preach (obviously), the Proud Boys, however, remain successful in their tactics of exploiting hateful, racist, and sexist rhetoric–this success lies in its ambiguity. For instance, in spite of their overt popularity today, it seems that their heinous philosophy deems directly proportionate with their success; as their acts of violence expands, as does their success. Why?

Founder, Gavin McInnes, cleverly utilizes rhetoric through false advertisement in that he publicly condemns white nationalism, yet likewise publicly enforces acts of violence. Although Twitter has banned accounts affiliated with the group, the Proud Boys engage their beliefs on Facebook. Manipulating masses and targeting the uneducated, their page recruits members through false advertisement that details qualities that refuse racism.

The simplicity of their recruitment is utilized to mask their violent intentions while also ensuring consistent participation on social media to make their group look less crucial and grim. Additionally, they utilize social media in hoping to present a sociable page that showcases a group of people with common interests rather than a hate group.

Further, in addition to false advertisement, they often manipulate their words to justify their participation in acts of violence. For instance, after violence had been publicly displayed succeeding recent protests, theguardian.com displays a comment from the McInnes CRTV show that introduces McInnes’ justification of violence in that “violence isn’t great, but justified violence is amazing.” To the less educated citizen, his comment may come off as justifiable if for the right cause, however, how are we to know when it is justifiable? He claims it is justifiable in effect to groups they condemn. However, in response to sexist accusation he validates that “I’m sexist is because women are dumb”(The Gavin McInnes Show), but how is that justifiable?