Author: ndb5281

 

 

“We all have a monster within; the difference is in degree, not in kind.” This rather frightful view of the human condition is exemplified cunningly in the famous series Breaking Bad. This show follows a middle-aged New Mexican, Walter White, who is a grossly underachieving chemistry genius struggling to make ends meet as a high school teacher. When diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, he comes face to face not only with death, but also with the idea that his family will be left in financial ruin, a vision that torments him even more. Backed into a corner of utter desperation, Walter decides to team up with a former student and try his hand at the drug trade, cooking crystal methamphetamine in an attempt to accumulate enough money for his family after he bites the dust. This new line of work takes Walter down a path of excitement, agony, loss, and eventually, great success that neither he nor the audience saw coming.

Throughout the series, Breaking Bad inclines its viewers to root for Walter at every turn, and it does a brilliant job at initiating this loyalty by garnering a boatload of sympathy for him at the start. In the very first episode, the audience is made aware that Walter once signed away his rights to a company that would come to be worth billions. As if this weren’t bad enough, the pilot heavily juxtaposes what could have been with the sorry excuse for a life Walt leads. Because of this, the audience is heavily inclined to view Walter as a morally-centered man whose illegal actions can be greatly justified by righteous motives. However, as the show progresses, Walter’s actions become harder and harder to condone, and there comes a point at which no one can deny that he has transformed into a truly despicable man and one of the most evil characters in a show full of drug lords and murderers. Yet even at his darkest moments, the audience is made to cheer for Walt just as much as they had in the first episode. So the natural question that stems from all this is, “Why do we continue to root for Walter despite his wickedness?” I believe the answer is twofold. First, Breaking Bad compels its audience to deeply hate most of the characters that oppose Walter. Two, unlike almost all of the other characters of power in the show, our protagonist builds his empire from virtually nothing, making viewers admire him so much that they continue to stick by his side.

Breaking Bad treats its viewers to wave after wave of brilliantly stylish, cunning, and, most of all, hateable opponents to our protagonist. From psychotic cartel gangsters with little control of their temper to Neo-Nazis without a trace of empathy for others, Walter certainly has his work cut out for him. Forced to cooperate with many of these shadowy crooks in order to further his business ventures, he inevitably has some falling-outs along the way. Though Walt isn’t a good guy by any means, the fact that the events are shown from his perspective coupled with the tendency of these villains’ actions and motives to be worse than his own instills in viewers immense feelings of animosity toward the antagonists. By besting each of these villains, Walter manages to climb to the very top of the drug world in a very short span, and he is able to do so with a few simple and yet momentous schemes. Walt’s brilliant toppling of his rivals inclines viewers to both relish in the defeat of the characters they’ve grown to hate and admire the brilliance and planning of the main character, solidifying him as the guy to root for throughout the entire show.

The best example of this pattern can be seen in the season-long rivalry between Walter and Chilean drug-trafficker, Gustavo Fring. In a connection offered by crooked lawyer, Saul Goodman, Walter begins to work for Fring at the end of season two. Operator of the biggest drug empire in the southwest for over two decades, Gus is certainly not a character to be trifled with, and his sneakiness and calm, business-like demeanor make him the scariest villain Breaking Bad has to offer. For a while, the Walter-Gus partnership works like clockwork, and the business is very profitable for the both of them. But when Walter disobeys a direct order from his boss, killing two of Gus’s gang-bangers in an attempt to save his partner, Jesse, Gus decides he can no longer trust his meth cook and sets off to exact revenge and rid himself of the threat he believes Walter has become. This decision makes way for an enduring chess match between Walter and Gus in which each man will stop at nothing to kill the other. From a truly unbiased perspective, perhaps Walter and Gus can be viewed as equally evil drug-runners whose relationship grew to a point at which they could simply no longer co-exist. However, the lense through which viewers see the show does a shrewd job at making Gus appear to be the one taking drastic measures, and Walter’s actions are seen as a desperate, necessary reaction that should be forgiven rather than an act of egotistic rebellion. As the audience grows to hate Gus, they are made to root even harder for Walt, even as he continues down the dark path on which he has embarked.

An entire season of this standoff ensues, the majority of which sees Walt as a battered underdog sure to meet a grizzly end in the near future. However, in one crafty ploy, our main character is able to lure an unsuspecting Gus into a nursing home, where the Chilean kingpin meets a sudden end as one side of his face is blown to bits by a homemade bomb. Just like that, Walter moved from the primary target of the biggest drug empire in the southwest to the main supplier of an entire region on track to profit tens of millions of dollars, and the viewers love it. They love to see Gus go, who they grew to despise with a deep passion. But more than that, they are awed by Walter’s tremendous ability to become “the man” in one fell swoop, and it doesn’t matter what he’s done or what he will do, because he’s just too damn cool.

 

 

 

What does it mean to be insane? Of course we all know that in general terms, this word means having a deviation from normal brain functioning that results in strange and often unacceptable fields of perception and behavior. However, insanity is not exactly measurable and is a very subjective concept. Is this condition determined by behavior alone? In other words, does the practice of a certain behavior, for example, murder, always require an at least moderately insane mind at the helm? Or can heinous actions be mandated by a perfectly normally functioning brain in instances of knowing disregard of societal conventions? On the other end of the spectrum, can one be insane without exhibiting at least a degree of odd behavior, or are distorted perceptions alone enough for this title? These frequently considered and widely divisive ideas construct the basis of another controversial debate: is there a difference between atrocious actions of insanity and crimes of evil/immorality, and if so, where is the line drawn? It is a commonplace that some people can simply not be held accountable for their actions due to severe disabilities and mental disparities. But how this “lack of accountability” is determined is remains an incomplete and hotly debated methodology. The issue of insanity and its many implications in relation to crime is an overarching theme in the movies, The Dark Knight and Joker, particularly in relation to their common villain in the infamous Joker. Each of these films offers a “real-life” interpretation of the famous comic foe, portrayed masterfully by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight and Joaquin Phoenix in Joker. Both movies bring the Joker to life by offering a glimpse “inside the mind” of the villain. However, the two brilliant portrayals make for vastly unique characters, each differentiated by its film’s use of hinting and analyzation of the Joker’s mental state.
The severe mental afflictions the Joker suffers is a key to understanding the character in both The Dark Knight and Joker. However, I believe Phoenix’s portrayal of the villain exhibits far stronger and more numerous mental illnesses than does Ledger’s. In Joker, a unique method of developing the character is employed that is unheard of in every other interpretation to date. This method is the relaying of the Joker’s backstory. For most of this movie, Phoenix portrays the Joker before he “transforms” into the vile criminal that we all know. He is a man by the name of Arthur Fleck, and the audience’s attention is immediately drawn to his severe depressive symptoms and other mental issues. Fleck sees a social worker for his disease, takes a boatload of medications, and is typically seen lost in a cloud of cold and empty sadness. This antihero also bursts into uncontrollable fits of laughter that do not match how he feels quite often, and it is evident that he has some severe issues that likely stemmed from traumatic past experiences. Later in the film, these ailments appear to transform into raging bursts of anger, the likes of which fuel Fleck’s evolution into his vile new identity. This detailing of the Joker’s mental ailments not only inclines the audience to sympathize with him, but it also provides a logical thread by which his metamorphosis can be understood, making for a dark and unique take on the timeless character.
The characterization of Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight follows a drastically different path in the illumination of his degree of mental soundness. No backstory concerning this villain is offered in the slightest; we don’t know where he’s from, what his real name is, or why he does what he does. Therefore, we have no formal information on whether this Joker experiences clinical mental ailments, and the audience instead has to rely on their own scrutiny of context clues. Throughout this film, the Joker if referred to as a “psychopath,” leading the audience to believe that he does, in fact, suffer some kind of mental disease. However, I believe that Ledger’s Joker suffers no such ailment. I believe that The Dark Knight’s Joker has a completely normally functioning mind, and his heinous deeds and purposes instead derive from a fully conscious and yet sickly twisted view of the world. For starters, this Joker does not exhibit any symptoms of depression. He is always portrayed in a fervent and upbeat manner, and everything he does is carried out with the utmost enthusiasm and attention to detail. Although much of this Joker’s agenda seems to be comprised of utter disorder, and the Joker himself claims to be an “agent of chaos”, a bit of digging and analysis of his many schemes reveal that almost every action he takes is calculated in the most precise and thoughtful manner. This not only assures the audience that the Joker is not troubled by an inability to rationalize and plan, but it makes the chances that he suffers from depression or some related ailment slim to none, as the thoroughness and continuous motivation to do great work he exhibits are almost always contradicted by depression. Concerning the issue of psychopathy, I believe the Joker is not plagued by any such disease, despite what many viewers and even characters in the movie assert. The Joker is a mass murdering, conniving villain who finds his wicked acts very entertaining and even funny. Because of this, people are quick to label him as “psychopath” in an attempt to understand his actions. But if we take a deeper look, we will find that the Joker, in fact, has an entirely normally functioning brain in this area as well. A key to being a psychopath is the absence of any ability to sympathize with others at all, and this disease is virtually always defined by a life lived in complete pursuit of self-gain. At first glance, this can appear to apply to Ledger’s Joker, but with a bit of dissection of key moments in the film, it is clear that it, in fact, does not. In a defining moment of The Dark Knight, the Joker is in a hospital room with severe burn victim and District Attorney of Gotham, Harvey Dent. Dent has not only been disfigured for life, but he has lost the woman he loves to an explosion, and it is the Joker’s fault. In a successful attempt to turn Dent to pursue revenge and plunge into a world of chaotic evil, the Joker allows the former face of Gotham to point a loaded gun at his head in an effort to incline him to begin a spree of vengeance. The Joker is completely prepared to die to accomplish this, and he only is allowed to live through the sheer luck of a coin toss. This proves that the Joker is not a psychopath, as psychopaths, in their interminable pursuit of self gain at the most severe expense of others, would never leave their life to chance for such a cause. Since Ledger’s Joker is, in fact, not plagued by any mental illness, the character’s horrid actions can only be attributed to his unique view of the world as a purely terrible place that hides its awfulness under the “mask” of society. This perspective makes sense of the Joker’s goals, which centered around proving to Gotham that everyone is ugly deep down by exposing their district attorney as a revenge-crazed monster. This dissection of Ledger’s Joker in a light of fully-aware pure evil makes for a truly bizarre and captivating villain that is as troubling as he is stylish.
Both The Dark Knight and Joker feature magnificent and timeless portrayals of one of the most renowned and thought-provoking villains ever to appear on the big screen. Both Joaquin Phoenix and Heath Ledger bring an entirely new dynamic to this character, and their performances will serve as precedents for any future interpretations of this killer clown. Though these Jokers share some defining aspects of the comic character in their common belief that humanity is naturally bad and their love of instigating chaos through gruesome violence, the diverging portrayals of these characters’ mental states make for two entirely different characters. In Joker, the relation of the villain’s backstory and incorporation of his severe mental ailments into his slow transition yield a character that the audience can deeply sympathize with while also fearing and resenting his heinous unpredictability. Heath Ledger’s take on the character, however, follows a lack of any backstory and is shaped by hints and defining moments that reveal the character to be of a completely sound mind; thus, the Joker’s evil nature is magnified in a thought-provoking and sickening nature that solidifies him as one of the best villains ever to tread the big screen. These contrasting and yet unifying depictions of the Joker reveal just how delicate and far-reaching issues of mental illness are. A simple difference in the integration of this one issue into the same essential character makes for two rare and emotionally mixed outcomes. Whatever standpoint we take on mental illness in its relationship to crime and evil motives, there is one thing everyone can admit: the consideration of these two elements in relation to one another makes for a realm of philosophy whose captivation is rarely matched.

 

 

 

 

When sitcom writer Larry David received the news that his guinea pig show Seinfeld had been renewed for a second season, set to air January 23 of 1991, he was brought to tears. These were not tears of joy, as you might assume; rather, they were tears of sadness and utter shock and disappointment. David had been reluctant to write the show to begin with, working only on the strong advice of his esteemed colleague and cowriter/star of the show, Jerry Seinfeld. The premise of the “show about nothing” in which simple, everyday situations would be applied to four friends living in the bustling world of 90’s New York City was an original and funny idea to David, but he could not possibly see it working in the public eye. Each episode David wrote during season one he was sure would be the last. Since he thought there was no way the show would actually become popular, he believed it was simply a waste of time and energy, and he impatiently awaited its cancellation. That is why he was so perplexed and dismayed when he learned he would have to write yet another whole season of this show that was sure to be a flop. Little did David know that this “show about nothing” would soon be everything but. Seinfeld would go on to be renewed for nine seasons, and it would go down in history as nothing short of one of the greatest and most beloved sitcoms of all time. From waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant for hours to being trapped by an angry mob after parking in a handicap spot, David’s consistent relation of real-life scenarios and ability to make them truly hysterical, is nothing short of incredible. However, as he easily could have (and many figured would have) David did not stop there. A few short years after the conclusion of Seinfeld in 1998, he went on to begin writing his next sitcom, Curb Your Enthusiasm, in which he was the star. Curb takes an even more simple, yet doubly hilarious take on the Seinfeldian idea of making everyday life hilarious, and with a touch of dry and inappropriate humor mixed in, which Seinfeld did not have. Curb follows the life of famous writer, Larry David (played by himself), and his life in Los Angeles. He lives in an amazing house, has a beautiful wife, and is friends with a boatload of famous actors and comics. Sounds like a pretty great life, huh? Nothing could be further from the truth. Episode after episode features scenarios in which David greatly offends someone, is offended, or suffers a wild combination of the two, and it always comes back to bite him in the end. No matter how good his intentions may seem, or how insignificant his odd everyday occurrences may appear, they will punish him in any possible number of ways. From garnering hate from the entire city after accidentally tripping basketball star Shaquille O’Neal while sitting courtside, to initiating a manhunt at his golf club after killing the owner’s beloved black swan after it attacked him, each wildly simple situation is more side-splitting than the last. Coupled with the unique sense of humor and impressively shameful yet relatable demeanor of the Larry David character, this show is none other than the funniest sitcom on television in the last two decades.
There are many different pieces of Curb that come together to contribute to its brilliantly hilarious status. The show’s ability to make everyday situations some of the funniest things we’ve ever seen is unmatched, even by Seinfeld, and this is the first and most obvious aspect of the show that makes it so funny. To give an example, in the very first episode, Larry is going to see a movie which his comic friend Richard Lewis and his date are also attending. When Larry tries to squeeze into the aisle to take a seat, the woman who has to move her legs so he can get by puts up a bit of a fuss. Larry then proceeds to confront her about it: “Is there a problem?” He sarcastically inquires. The two then proceed to get in a big fight about who was in the wrong. The situation escalates even further when the woman accuses Larry of looking at her breasts, to which he responds with a demeaning and hilarious knock, asserting that the breasts are fake. Little does Larry know, the woman he just jawed with is none other than his comedian friend’s date to the movie, and this little quarrel sets off a chain of events that will affect Larry’s plans in the next few days and will eventually come back to bite him, despite every ploy of his to rectify the situation while also maintaining his stubborn dignity (refusing to admit he was wrong). This is just one example of a repeating and yet fresh pattern in which an everyday occurrence that the audience can relate to is depicted, a twist is put into the mix of the situation by making it affect Larry in a broader context, a hilarious solution courtesy of our main character is relayed, and then a conclusion is made in which it all blows up in his face, often with a bit of slapstick humor for good measure. This structure makes for a timeless and endlessly funny show, and each new situation is just as original as the last; after all, there is an endless amount of scenarios to work with when you limit them to people’s everyday experiences. This brilliant pattern is coupled with unique dialogue that is remarkably reflective of everyday life. The conversations we hear in the show lack the aura of “resolution” we might typically see on television shows. With each conversation, we’re not sure if progress has been made or a regression has been suffered. But we know one thing for sure: we are really getting a kick out of watching the characters struggle and argue. Finally, the glue that holds the show together, the aspect that truly sets it apart from other shows, is the unique characterization of Larry David. Throughout the show, David takes on a forte in which he is a sort of “social assassin”; in other words, he is always the guy to say what everyone is thinking, and he has no shame or embarrassment at being the center of attention or the one deviant in a room of polite members of society. This relatively simple idea makes for a character that we’ve never seen before. He is so relatable and yet so different from ourselves and everyone we’ve ever met in that he doesn’t follow the typical “rules” laid out by society. Larry David’s portrayal of himself is funnier than any character in Seinfeld, or any character in any show for that matter, and that is what truly sets Curb apart from the rest of what is out there. So, if you haven’t seen the show, I highly recommend that you give it a try. But remember, curtail your excitement, it’s just a television show.

 

 

 

“Everything is political. I will never be a politician or even think political. Me just deal with life and nature. That is the greatest thing to me.” This unique take on the groundwork for a simple and complete life was quoted by famous Jamaican reggae singer, Bob Marley, and it is very reflective of the simplicity that made him the renowned and beloved artist that he was. Marley’s songs traversed a wide array of topics, from standing up for civil liberties to appreciating the deep love of a significant other. Many of his songs seem to fit right in with his aforementioned view on peacefully existing in nature, such as “Three Little Birds” and “Jammin’.” However, others seem to directly contradict this view by calling for a fervent political demand for social justice and freedom, as in his call to action against the British government in “Get Up, Stand Up.” Marley’s songs couple his simple views on how to live and love with his many complex and ambiguous messages on spirituality and morality to make the singer a beloved and timeless source of inspiration and contemplation. A prime example of the intangible nature of Marley and other beloved artists like him can be observed in the image above. This photograph, taken in 1978, depicts (from left to right) Bob Marley, The Rolling Stones’ lead singer, Mick Jagger, and Marley’s fellow band member, Peter Tosh, posing backstage at a Stones concert. With the uniqueness of these artists at the center of the image’s message, a sly and heartfelt argument is made. The photograph utilizes its many contrasting components and benefits from a modern context to instill a paradoxical understanding among its viewers of both the simplicity and ethereality of the artists it depicts. The image evokes these associations through the plain and distinct appearances of the artists themselves, the contrasting black and white imagery, and through the modern pop culture contexts that surround these artists.

In the image above, each of the artists is made to look stunningly “human”; that is to say, they look very much like regular people, and little if anything about their appearances signify that they are some of the most renowned singers of all time. Marley and Tosh are both adorned with “rasta caps”, which, while signifying that they are members of the unique Rastafarian religion, make for a cheerfully personable and simple aura. The rest of the artists’ outfits reinforce this sense of relatability. Bob Marley is wearing a collared Adidas shirt embellished with a button that reads “Rolling Stones 1978 guest”, making him seem like just any other fan of the beloved band. Mick Jagger is wearing a buttoned khaki jacket, the likes of which can be bought at a common thrift shop. Peter Tosh’s outfit is the most simple of all, as he is wearing short sleeves and a slim gold necklace that drapes below his chin, giving the singer an almost “working class” appearance. The artists’ common clothing not only hides their elite status, but it makes them more likable among viewers that can perhaps draw many similarities to these artists just from what they are wearing. Furthering this essence of likability are the leisurely expressions the artists are showcasing. Each singer features a hearty grin with an abundance of genuinity. The smiles are relaxed and telling, and they instill the sense that perhaps a joke or a thoughtful conversation had just been exchanged. Jagger slightly tilts his head to the side, and Tosh appears to be almost laughing; these small details are key to conveying the simplicity that is the photo’s goal. Despite these hints towards a common sense of humanness, it goes without saying that these artists’ faces are unmistakable, and their fame is immediately known by most viewers; each artist was and is among the most referenced and beloved music-makers the world has ever seen. This sense of fame evoked by the artists’ faces coupled with the humanity that their appearances elicit solidifies an intangible ambience that makes the photo as intriguing as it is multi-faceted. One the one hand, the musicians appear to be just like you and me. On the other hand, they are known to be famous beyond compare. In an ironic twist, the simplicity portrayed by the image conjures perhaps an even more ambiguous interpretation of the singers by solidifying them as a rare combination of common men and honored idols.

Another means by which the image constructs opposing perspectives of the singers it depicts is through its utilization of black and white imagery. The entire image is in black and white, and this was a purposeful artistic tactic used by the photographer, as color was obviously an option at the time of the photo’s release. This strategy is twofold. One, the black and white evokes a sense of nostalgia and is reminiscent of a “simpler time” in which photos could only be taken in these colors. In this light, the artists are made to seem relatable in the sheer sense that they are depicted in a basic manner and are linked to a simple time, which people often yearn for. Behind this old-fashioned choice lies a second motive: the furthering of the audience’s “otherworldly” sense of the singers. If the imagery makes the artists seem down to earth, it also solidifies them as the complex and intangible stars that they are. The black and white creates a sense of dissociation from the rest of the world, and this dissociation is coupled with the singers’ known stardom to usher in a sense of unique greatness and awe among the viewers.

The argument this image makes is thoroughly facilitated by the ever-developing contexts that surround these artists. Of course, at the time this photo was released, each of these musicians had already asserted themselves to be among the greatest artists ever to perform, which went a long way in establishing a sense of ethereality among them in 1978. However, in the several decades that followed, a distinct and inspiring legacy would come to surround each of these stars, the likes of which would make them pop culture legends while also imparting emotional associations that allowed the general public to empathize and relate to them. Within ten years of the release of this photo, both Bob Marley and Peter Tosh had died. Marley passed away in 1981 of skin cancer, and Tosh was murdered in his home in 1987 by armed robbers. These deaths were overwhelmingly devastating for fans around the globe, as each artist passed so suddenly and was struck down in the midst of an already fabled career, the likes of which promised to bring joy and memories to the world for decades. Marley and Tosh’s abrupt passings made them staunchly human while also placing them on pedestals of mysticism. On one hand, their deaths proved that they were people just like everyone else, subject to the randomness of a cruel world. The public was made to be acutely aware of the preexisting but often underlying truth that fame is just a facade, and we are all truly the same underneath. On the other end of the spectrum, Marley and Tosh’s deaths made their talents even more intangible and their identities even more abstract. The mere fact that both artists were no longer alive made their music a rarer, more esoteric commodity whose fame grew as time went on. In addition, as the 1980s faded from view, so too did the memories and understandings of these singers dissolve into abstract concepts. The quotes, personalities, and beliefs of Marley and Tosh became something of folklore, and this increased intrigue and uncertainty made them all the more beloved as the years went on.

The modern context surrounding Mick Jagger is quite different than that of Marley and Tosh, but it is reflective of a similar reinforcement of the paradoxical interpretations elicited by the photograph. Not only is Mick Jagger still alive, but he is continues to perform with The Rolling Stones at the age of 76. The Stones are arguably the most famous band ever to perform, and they certainly are among the longest-standing. This legacy links Mick Jagger to an aura of fame and ethereality that is unmatched even by the likes of Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, and the fact that he is still performing only serves to further his spectacularity and make him more special than perhaps any musician to ever exist. The different contexts surrounding these artists serve to evoke a converging assertion of both their humanity and otherworldliness.

Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, and Mick Jagger are three of the most legendary human beings ever to bless the world with their gifts. Humble, talented, principled, and beloved, these three showed what it truly meant to be great, reaching far beyond their musical talent to leave inspiring legacies. This photograph of them gushing backstage like three schoolchildren is one that touches people of every background and from every part of the world, evoking a surreal sense of appreciation, heartbreak, and everything in between. This picture conveys these artists as relatable, down-to-earth figures while also hinting that they are pioneers that should be revered as abstract and unreplicable creators. The photo accomplishes this combination by portraying the artists as instantly recognizable and leisurely dressed, employing a twofold utilization of black and white imagery, and by benefiting from the modern context that surrounds these artists. This crafty and beautiful image insinuates the valuable lesson that some people can do things that no one else can, and in this sense the world is not a balanced place. However, people that have unmatched talents are human just like the rest of us, and that commonality is what allows the world to share and revel in such greatness.

One of the most commonly utilized methods of argumentation in the world is the concept of making the opposing position seem “stupid” or, in kinder terms, obviously wrong. This is a tactic that is permanently ingrained in the minds of humans, as it is very easy to understand and has very profound persuasive effects. I call this type of argumentation “duh rhetoric”, as the point is to quickly convince people to think, “Oh, duh, that’s obviously wrong.” This argument is very easy to formulate and employ, as it doesn’t dive very deeply into contemplative consideration and rather furthers an idea by supposedly eliminating all other possibilities in one foul swoop. People are very quick to succumb to the arguments of duh rhetoric, as they are unconsciously prompted to conform to a subjective position disguised as a universal truth. Though it can appear very compelling and evidenced, duh rhetoric is typically very shallow and not thoroughly logical, disguising a brief emotional appeal to “not want to be dumb” as poweful logic. However, duh rhetoric can sometimes devise arguments that are both effective and of merit, reaching a logically-backed and powerful point in an efficient manner. An example of duh rhetoric that falls into this elusive category is the political bumper sticker embedded below. This bumper sticker reads the following: “Dear conservative, just think of gays, women, blacks, immigrants, and the poor as embryos that grew big and developed central nervous systems.” This highly controversial argument utilizes a satirical thread of irony and absurdism along with the implication of recent political commonplaces to quickly dismantle the logic of common conservative viewpoints and effectively oppose these attitudes.

In an analysis of the denotation of this bumper sticker, a rather simple interpretation is made that does not appear to have a deep or controversial meaning at all. The argument is simply calling for conservatives to view several specific groups of people, namely minorities, as anatomical human beings in a scientific sense that are inherently the same as each other and everyone else. Interpreting this single sentence in the context of its face value meaning could yield the interpretation that all people are the same scientifically speaking, and thus everyone should be treated equally regardless of social status or wealth. However, when the context of known commonplaces surrounding the views of conservatives and liberals is added into the mix, an entirely different argument is illuminated, and one that is much more controversial and far-reaching. If the idea that conservatives are vehemently against abortion and liberals are fervently in support of women’s choice is considered, an entirely new conversation comes into play. The placement of another puzzle piece, the commonplace that the minority groups mentioned (gays, women, blacks, immigrants, and the poor) are often discriminated against by conservative citizens and politicians, completes the picture to convey a compact and yet multifaceted argument. This argument is a satirical reveal of logical and moral flaws in the positions and practices of conservatives, and it is quite effective. The main idea the argument alludes to is the assertion that the conservatively supported position of “pro-life” is immoral, and its warrant is further diminished when coupled with another contradictory and equally reprehensible conservative practice in the discrimination against several minority groups.

The bumper sticker employs an absurd and satirical situation to formulate a duh rhetoric argument in which the logic and morality of conservative views and practices are severely discredited. When considering the broader contexts and commonplaces alluded to by the sentence, a new message is conjured: Perhaps conservatives should amend their critical views of abortion and adopt the practice as a means to get rid of minority groups which they so despise. This argument clearly cannot be taken for its face value, and rather serves as a comedic take to draw the reader’s attention. This argument is clearly an absurd idea that would obviously never be put into practice, as it calls for a severely immoral and illogical adoption of a viewpoint. However, it does establish a thread of sensible logic that the reader is expected to assemble themselves, and this tactic is twofold. One, it illuminates the idea that conservatives and the candidates they support have been irrefutably known to discriminate against the aforementioned minority groups. Conservatives have called for refusals to acknowledge non-traditional gender identities and sexual orientations in both the public sphere and the workplace, the banning of those of certain ethnicities and religious backgrounds from travelling to the United States, the cutting of healthcare programs that people in need depend on, and, last but not least, the seizing of the basic right of women to choose what happens to their own body, the last point tying into the argument’s next idea. The second purpose of the argument’s ploy is to reveal the immorality of refusing women their right to choose. The satirical interpretation of the bumper sticker illuminates just how stupid the conservative views alluded to are. The proposal that conservatives adopt abortion as a wicked solution to their policies of discrimination is a wildly illogical and unethical proposal, and it is made to mirror the senselesness and immorality of both pro-life limitations and calculated conservative discrimnination. The reader is meant to construct the absurd scenario, laugh at it, and immediately rule it out, thinking, “How dumb is this?” This is where the effective duh rhetoric comes in; though the dissociation we feel is for the satirical argument rather than the rational argument itself, we are made to feel the same disdain for the conservative views hinted at by the satire. The argument convinces its reader to side with it by ruling out the other side in a strong, efficient, and logical manner.

The bumper sticker referenced below, though only extending one sentence, provides a strong and effective argument that utilizes implications and satire to convey its ideas. On its surface, the argument calls for an adoption of a view of equality towards all people regardless of minority status. However, when the context of major liberal and conservative viewpoints come into play, entirely new ideas take center stage, formulating through the employment of an absurd and satirical approach. The satirical proposal for conservatives to adopt a stupid and vastly immoral tactic to further their visions is reflective of just how out of place some of their views in reality are, and thus these views are discredited, and viewers are inclined to completely rule them out as positions of substance. The attack of character and satirical mockery this argument utilizes, though effective and reasonable, is indicative of a troubling trend that is coming to fruition in today’s world of politics. This trend is a growing pattern of the passing off of shallow personal attacks and unconsidered disagreement as effective argumentation. This trend has been particularly evident throughout the Trump administration, as immature condemnation and stubbornness has done wonders for the President time and time again. This shows that while short arguments of denunciation can be of substance, it is essential that we beware of their power and consider the implications of the arguments beneath the surfaces we are presented.

 

https://www.zazzle.com/funny_liberal_political_bumper_sticker-128027087005728034?rf=238772772155923633&tc=ed693936bc8c17f173156487b941fa0d&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=us_shopping&utm_term=&ca_chid=2001810&ca_ace={aceid}&ca_nw=o&ca_dev=c&ca_pl={placement}&ca_pos={adposition}&ca_cid={creative}&ca_agid=1196269073820950&ca_caid=352493967&ca_adid={creative}&ca_kwt=&ca_mt=e&ca_fid=&ca_tid=pla-4578366443348350:aud-807804812&ca_lp=&ca_li=&ca_devm={devicemodel}&ca_plt={target}&msclkid=ed693936bc8c17f173156487b941fa0d