I am not a huge fan of this, but recent events in Tucson, AZ have pulled everyone into this country into the talk about "inciting speech". The Left has been accusing The Right of making incendiary comments. The Right has been counter-accusing The Left of attempting to shut off speech that does not comply with "The Big Government Regime" (all emphasis mine).
Regardless of how you feel about this topic, I think it is having a major effect on the idea of freedom of speech as currently understood in this country.
Check out this article here, posted last week on The Agonist. Critically analyze this argument. Who's making it? What side of the political fence are they? How does this relate to what happened in Tucson, Arizona? Is this a way to corral free speech? Or is this a way to control dangerous potential threats to the country? Does this blog fit the idea of Mature Reasoning we'll discuss in today's class? Why or why not?
This is the first part of a set of ideas, as we hit this from different sides.
As for the picture, I found it funny how both political parties could use this picture (the Democrats from 2001-2008; the Republicans from 2009 to now). It's the ultimate bipartisan picture. picture found on samsonblinded.org
MP
P.S. You have until MONDAY, 1/24/11 to complete your response to this article. 300-500 words, please. This one requires a little in-depth work.
ReplyDeleteThis argument was made by a Daily Kos diarist named "G2geek" and was publicized on January 10th, 2011. He is sitting on the Democratic side of the political fence because his argument is blaming very liberal talk show hosts for the killing that occurred in Arizona. The reason G2geek wrote this article was to place the blame for the Arizona killings on the highly liberal talk show hosts such as Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly because of their highly suggestive ideas used in their talk shows. If they don't agree with an idea being discussed by another party, they make it well known and furthermore, their viewers will cease to agree with said idea as well. I don't believe that this is a way to corral free speech, I think that it is merely pressing the idea that we need to stop believing everything that we hear in the media, we need to have our own opinions and act like sane adults rather that just going out and killing someone that we don't like. If this idea was able to be proven (lone wolves or human missiles being activated by mass media) then I would believe that this was a way to control dangerous threats in the media but there is no proof. I do agree that these talk show hosts do step over the line from time to time (I don't watch them frequently but will turn them on if I can't find anything better to watch) but I don't believe that they are using ordinary people to carry out their bidding for them. I don't think that this blog fits the idea of mature reasoning that we will discuss in today's class because as I previously stated, there is no evidence to prove that this theory is real nor has been used by the political media.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is very one sided. G2geek's argument is just a blame game and he happens to blame talk shows hosts? Which I don't really understand why he pointed those people out when he could of blamed anyone for waht happened. If anything it sounds like this person doesn't like these people and they way they think/act so he decided to go against them. He is blaming talk shows host for the killings in Arizona. Why? Most likely because like I said earlier he doesn't like them or has something against them or maybe they were one sided with there stories so he is attacking back because it seems as though G2geek has different political views than what others do. I think G2geek is expressing himself like everyone in our nation is able to do,but if he doesn't agree with other people's view, why should you go and bash them and make them look bad? It will start to ruin your image and just not the others. I think he could of wrote an article without names and being so forward because then you are more likely to have people yelling back at you and getting more negative feedback then positive and supportive. I know talk show hosts have over-stepped there lines before with certain things they say, but that's there job, to get a rise out of people and to make fun of certain events. No one should take it this serious as G2geek does. As for the killing others part just because you don't like someone etc. I think that is just downright wrong and inmature of people. You just don't go around shooting people for that reason. We weren't put on this earth to go around killing each other. (not that I was aware of anyway)I think the lone wolves and human missiles are hopefully a way to control dangerous threats,but who knows for sure. Overall I wish we didn't have to worry about any of thse things and everyone could just get along because the world would be such a happier place like GOD intended it to be. (yes not all the time happy,but better than it is now)
ReplyDeleteG2geek, a diarist off of the Daily Kos, is making the argument that broadcasters and the mass media are responsible for forming stochastic terrorists out of emotionally stable people through emotional rhetoric. He is on the democratic side of the political fence and I believe he is making his argument with no relation to the other side. He is blaming all these radio personalities for the acts of people who are clearly emotionally unstable. He is never really open to the other side and what they have to say. He is more focused on making his argument and convincing others to believe him. The killings that happened in Arizona were blamed on broadcasters influencing emotional unstable people to commit crimes. Therefore this is another situation where broadcasters are being blamed for the crimes of people. This is not a way to corral free speech because it is really just suggesting that we should not listen to the media. We can interpret it however we want, there are people out there with problems that might interpret a different way than people who are normal and do not have anything wrong. This is also not a way to control potential terrorist threats because again someone would have to be crazy to interpret messages given from the media as a sign to go out and kill mass amounts or any amount of people. He gives no evidence to the fact that these acts are caused by these talk show hosts. I know that they have strong opinions and speak freely but I do not think this allows others to interpret their messages in bad ways. The idea of Mature Reasoning does not fit this blog because it is not a credible piece of writing. If your sources are credible then you are seen as more credible and believable. Also they do not really put much light on the other side of the argument which is important in Mature Reasoning. Overall I think the article was interesting but I am not convinced to join his side of the fence on this one.
ReplyDeleteThis article, written by Michael Collins, talks about the unfortunate truth that some people are that easily programmable to possibly believe everything they see or hear on the news or television. It seems that he is more on the liberal side of the political fence. This article is in relation to the Tucson, Arizona events, because it seems to be on the topic of the “lone-wolf” type characters that have no emotional control. An example of a “lone-wolf” style shooter, the Tuscon shootings happened after a gunman decided to shoot up a “Congress on Your Corner” meeting. The gunman intended to assassinate Arizona representative Gabrielle Giffords. It is possible that he was a direct effect of Stochastic Terrorism, possibly by radicals on the ends of the political spectrum. It is so strange to me how different human beings can be from one another in their thoughts and actions. The fact is some human beings maybe have some sort of short-circuiting going on in their small brains. I'm of course not talking about the "lone-wolf" types, who are actually emotionally unstable, and have actual medical and psychological problems, I'm talking about those of us humans who don't have mental problems, but still seem to have some screws loose somewhere. I'm talking about the Bill O'Reillys and Rush Limbaughs across the world. People who have a soapbox to preach their somewhat biased logic to the masses of people, who unfortunately seem to take their words to heart as truth. In the reading, it talks about these media personalities who spew their emotional, irrational and sometimes biased ideas and thoughts on a regular basis. It talks about how the stochastic terrorists know what they are doing; " pulling the trigger by remote control." It states that, "One Way to do it would be to use your position on radio or TV to hurl emotional rhetoric that is calculated to appeal to people who are psychologically unstable. Some of them will go out and vote, some will go forth and spread your rant-memes, some will get into bar-room brawls over one issue or another." This is quite a scary thought, because it is astonishing how emotionally and psychologically unstable people are. I feel like this could be an attempt to corral free speech, because it talks about how the “lone-wolf” types are effecting by Stochastic Terrorists. As much as I dislike and almost despise the Bill O’Reilly types, I reluctantly have to realize they have the freedom of speech. I feel like this blog doesn’t really fit the idea of Mature Reasoning because it is relatively one-sided, and it doesn’t seem to be open to criticism, and it is in reality, just a theory as of now. This article really made me wonder about the future of our constitutional freedoms because human beings are dangerous creatures, who sometimes seem to revert to a primal, idiotic state of mind, and act irrationally.
ReplyDelete-matt labyk
The argument that G2Geek2 made is definitely one sided. He seems to be a radical since he was accusing O’Reilly and Beck of being some main characters in the creation of “lone wolves” and they are both conservatives. O’Reilly has had the number one news show on cable television for several years, so I feel as though people probably agree with his views, but it doesn’t mean its the correct view. What happened in Arizona seems like the mental state of the shooter was more of the problem then what he could have been “fed” via political shows. When certain people act out I do agree it reflects on their well being and environment. Harsh environments can produce harsh personalities, but people can choose, try to over come hardships and have a better future for their lives. I do not think that this is a way to corral free speech, someone will always have a different opinion. Thats one of the wonderful things available to us, living in the free country of USA. If we do not like the opinion of a certain political person or even party, we can simply just ignore them. A lot of people like to put their faith in this whole system that our government runs by, but how do you know what is real or not. Also we always have to remember that media outlets are backed by certain companies so what they are reporting are not always the complete story. I do not think that censoring certain strong political figures in the media will prevent people from acting out in a violent way. People will always believe what they want and act the way they see pleasing to themselves. No media or person will ever change that about our society.
ReplyDelete-Lucy Ho
Michael Collins is looking at and analyzing an essay written by G2geek. It appears that he is on the liberal end of the political spectrum based on the examples of figures he uses that use rhetoric to sway their audience, such as Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly. He also mentions FOX NEWS, which is conservative in nature. He is basically saying that these conservative figures are the people that get the “lone wolf” to act, which is something that a liberal would accuse a conservative of. Much like a conservative would do the same thing but use different examples. This relates to what happened in Arizonan, because assuming the authors theory is correct, the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Gifford is due to a “lone wolf”, who was influenced and motivated to act based on the rhetoric of figures he had seen on television. This is mostly a way to control free speech, because it is hard to determine what is free speech and what has potential for harm, is it fair to limit the speech of many because a few might act in a dangerous way? I am not saying I think you should be able to scream fire in a theater or bomb on a plane, but who determines where the line is drawn? And I feel more comfortable with more rights than less of them. And I feel this article is an attempt to scare people into limiting free speech. I do not believe that that article is an example of mature reasoning because, the author doesn’t have credibility. He doesn’t build ethos, so it makes it difficult to fully trust his article. But, I am also torn, because he does answer the responses to post made about the article. He is open to criticism, and that is one of the requirements of mature reasoning.
ReplyDelete-Michelle Dawe
In this article, written by G2geek, he talks about "emotional rhetoric" and stochastic violence. This article seemed very scattered and confusing. G2geek seemed to be very one sided in his opinion. He accused O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck of being evocative political figures and pretty much says they are just making things worse for the emotionally unstable people out there. I'm really not sure what problems he has with them, but he obviously isn't too fond of them.
ReplyDeleteHe talks about "lone wolves", which are emotionally unstable people who, out of no where, commit a violent act. It's pretty scary when you really think about it, because it really could happen to anyone who is emotionally unstable and one day something so tiny could just set them off and then someone ends up paying for it.
G2geek also talks about a stochastic terrorist using the mass media to get unstable people to commit violent acts. It is crazy to think that someone would do that, but I guess there are people out there that are so seriously messed up that they would. I don't really have too big of an opinion to form on that but I will say that using someone else to do your bidding and playing it off like you don't have a clue is just crazy.
This article was a little confusing, and seemed very scattered to me, as I mentioned before. I think G2geek should have defended for both sides, rather than just stating one side of the story so strongly, that definately would have made it more interesting.
Interesting blog, though I am not a fan of this. The argument, which was attacked by Michael Collins, was made by G2geek. Daily Kos diarist G2geek stated that the stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent. It is through “emotional rhetoric” that lone wolves are activated and go on to commit bombing and assassination, which reminds us the shooting of Arizona representative Gabrielle Giffords, which seemed to be on the topic of the “lone-wolf” type personality so called as “stochastic terrorist”. It can be deduced from the passage that Michael Collins himself is on the liberal end of the political spectrum while G2geek on democratic side. G2geek argued that the highly open talk show hosts such as Glenn Beck or O’Reilly are responsible for the killing; for they are always displacing very evocative and intentional political rhetoric and acting that have a probabilistic ignitability, thus people who are emotionally unstable committed murder. I don’t think the media press is emotional and irrational, nor should we address the attackers psychologically unstable; otherwise, I believe there is a hidden purpose behind the biased ideas spread at step-over-the-line talk shows and the passages written by G2gee and Michael Collins. That is politics, anyway. Media is controlled by the big financial groups who practice their political beliefs and values based on their own interests. Therefore, it is easy to understand that they, including the broadcasters, are using ordinary common people to carry out their biddings through various forms of politically motivated violence, indicated as “pulling the trigger by remote control”. I don’t think the blog is an example of mature reasoning. Actually no passage or idea connected to political conflicts is mature reasoning. Michael Collins and G2geek both have their different political stances that are irreconcilable. You can say G2geek is going to extremes to prove that the danger of the stochastic terrorist who, in his opinion, came from the democratic side. However, you can also discover that Michael Collins’s reasoning is still rendering mistake hypothesis theories. For instance, Michael points out that it is important to examine the author's link between the claimed stochastic terrorism of bin Laden and the domestic process that he describes, based on the other two authors. But why dose Michael assume that what they are right? When it comes to the implications of this theory, he said that “…we can assume that those in charge require little of any justification for their actions”, which seemed ridicules. He has quick eyes for imperfections but he failed to do the mature reasoning for himself. Speech freedom allows everyone show his opinions openly even without thinking about the consequences, but the freedom of reasoning lies in individual’s independent thinking. Dangerous thinking, especially blindly following those fanaticize them, can only do harm to our society.
ReplyDeleteTianxiao Zhang
This article, written by Michael Collins, takes a very controversial side. I thought this piece was a little confusing because G2geek is blaming media and broadcasting for generating stochastic terrorism. The argument is that media creates “lone wolves” out of emotionally unstable people. G2geek just wants to place blame on people like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck because what is said during their talk shows. There is no way to prove that they themselves create the “lone wolf” people. These “missiles” are already rough around the edges and unsound to begin with. This is relatable to the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona because the shooter, or the “lone wolf”, could have been manipulated by media sources to cause such a scene. On the other hand the shooter was obviously very volatile and crazy to begin with. There is no way you can be in the right state of mind and decide to walk into a Congressional meeting and start shooting a gun. I don’t think that people like this should blame the problem on one thing because it could very well be a mixture of things that triggers the “lone wolves” to attack. I think that this is both a way to corral the freedom of speech and a way to control dangerous potential threats to the United States. American politicians should be protected in some sort of way anyway. I do not think that this blog fits the idea of Mature Reasoning. Since the data is not proven to be true, how can you be well informed? I also do not believe this to be very creditable. However, I did notice that Michael Collins did respond back to the comments at the end of the blog. This might mean he is self-critical and open to constructive criticism.
ReplyDelete-Christy Lough
In the article "A look at Stochastic Terrorism: Triggering the Shooters" The author Michael Collins breaks down and analyzes a recent article by G2Geek pertaining to Stochastic Terrorism, which more or less in accordance to this articles is described as media personalities (missiles) and their rhetoric to "influencing" the 'lone wolf', or the guy watching TV on the couch who may be unstable enough to go out after watching the news and take matters into his/her own hands. Michael Collins is challenging the argument made by G2Geek, who feels like news personalities are the indirect cause of some of these terroristic shootings/events that occur. I felt that G2Geek made a very intriguing point and caused me to think a little more in depth on the subject given the supporting information such as past shootings as well as the Osama theory. However, I feel that in the last article of Collins' opinion report that he balances out the argument very well by stating how we as people need to simply "show restraint and common decency". Overall, I found the G2Geek article extremely interesting and I felt that Collins understood the point trying to be made but countered well when saying we cannot use the media as an outlet to play the blame game and make up for people using "stochastic terrorism" as an easy out to avoid responsibility for their actions
ReplyDeleteI think that this article brings up some very good points about free speech and the effects of some of the emotional rhetoric. I personally feel that you should be able to “Yell theater in a crowed fire”(1) The problem with this is that many Americans and other people around the world are not smart or tolerant enough to be exposed emotional rhetoric. It can also be said the people like Beck and O’ Reilly more often than not seem to spout off at the mouth without thinking about what they are saying and the consequences their words my have. I very rarely can watch more than a minute or two of their programs.This article by Michael Collins A look at “Stochastic Terrorism: Triggering the Shooters” is very biased for the left and against the right. Michael Collins is doing the same thing as O’Reilly and Beck, he is presenting a one-sided argument that seems designed to anger his audience. While Collins and G2Geek provide some good points I think they are just as bad as people like O’Reilly and Beck one of which could quite possibly be the Devil. If Collins would present a more unbiased point of view or even provided examples from more than one political party this article would have more ground to stand on. I do not feel like this article was written by someone that was using mature reasoning.
ReplyDelete1 Abbie Hoffman
Aaron Balazs
The argument made by the Daily Kos diarist named “G2geek” that was publicized on January 10, 2011 may not be taken too seriously by people that are educated on the topics. However, there are numerous people in the world that will be quick to believe the “theory.” The theory that G2gee” proposes is that the liberal media influences “lone wolves” so much to a point that the blame for assassinations and shootings. G2geek gives a few examples of assassinations and shootings in hopes of trying to make the argument credible, but personally I feel that in the end the power is still in the hands of the person that does the assassinating. You cannot blame the people that
ReplyDeleteMichael Collins wrote a response to the argument that G2geek proposed. Collins covers both sides of the argument that G2geek put forward. One of the most recent events that relates to what the two authors are discussing would be the shootings that recently took place in Tucson, Arizona. The shooter attacked a total of nineteen people were attacked. What would G2geek have to say about this? What would Collins have to say about this?
In an educated guess, G2geek would probably try to link it to the thesis that he proposed considering the fact that there were a number of government officials involved as victims. If he was able to find any kind of evidence of media influencing the shooter to do such acts, then there could be even more of a future for the thesis. Collins would probably write from two sides just as he did in his previous work. He would eventually end up dismissing the argument as he did before supporting the more Democratic side of the argument. Could the thesis that G2geek proposed actually be serious? As of now I am not quite sure, however you never know if future research is done it could be generally accepted.
Dustin Anderson
This article does a great job at looking at many different aspects in which this situation can be comprehended. However, I feel that the media blows many stories way out of proportion. While the media and G2geek does share the news stories with the public, I feel that they are way over exaggerated, making the writer sound like they do not know what they are talking about. While this article viewed many different areas in the government relating to the Tucson shootings, I felt that the author was uneducated about what was really happening. It seems that the author kind of tried to link the Tucson shootings to other crimes and assassinations that have occurred in the past. However, as far as I know this is the first time a mass shooting (nineteen people) has occurred during a government function where more than one official has been shot.While this article does bring up some good points about freedom of speech, the article is instantly dumbed down by blank ideas that are published throughout. This is such a controversial topic right now that I think next time the writer would be further ahead writing about things they actually researched. Just writing and publishing a piece like this without any evident research being done really undermines the potential and talent of the author, and makes them a questionable source in the media.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn Huml
The artical was written by a Daily Kos diarist named "G2geek" about "stochatic terrorism" due to free speach. I really had a hard time understanding this article because it had no direct relations between the talk show hosts it mentioned and anything really happening. G2geek is difinately a conservative who's afraid of the first ammendment. I understand how this relates to what happened in Tuscan, Arizona, but I think the author should be more concerned about who has the right to access the internet and less on talk show hosts being the "missiles" that set off assasins and bombers. People choose what the watch on television and what they're interested in, there would be no way to block unstable people from watching intellectual shows. We could take any show on television and blame an unfortunate event on it; it's too easy. There was a court case not too long ago blaming the band Judas Priest for the suicide and attempted suicide of two young men due to the line in the song saying "do it". People will always blame unfortunate events on other people but it's really just a way to deflect the blame. A good example that maybe G2geek should have considered is cult leaders. Charles Manson is a good example of a Stochatic Terrorism since he brainwashed his followers into killing a number of people but he himself did not get blood on his hands. This is definately an example since he put the thought into his followers minds. I don't think that talk show hosts are intentionally trying to influence their unstable viewers; they're simply opinionated people who are able to share their thoughts with a large audience. G2geek seemed a little on the paranoid side, however; I do think that this article fits the criterea for mature reasoning as it is open to criticism, (as it he states that it is a fairly new idea) he argues with his audience by deleviring such an off the wall idea, he seems to be well informed as well as knows his arguments. Although I don't agree with G2geek he did bring up some very interesting points.
ReplyDeleteZoey Sollisch
I find the article very interesting but the article is very one sided. The argument made by a diarist from Daily Kos is there blaming talk shows such as Beck and O'Brien for the killing not just in Arizona but other shootings that have happened in the past. The talk shows can be very overwhelming sometimes but i don’t agree with there opinions that people are doing these shootings and terrorist acts based on what a talk show host has to say. The diarist makes some very good points but he doesn’t consider the other side to his argument which is very important in mature reasoning. The article describes how media personalities have a big influence on the lone wolf, what they mean by lone wolf is a certain person who watches these talk shows and have a urge to take what there hearing and take the matter in there own hands. I feel that there are a lot of unstable people in the world just ready to snap but as far as going to the point where you blaming talk show host for influencing people to cause harm to other i don't agree, you could also bring up the argument of video games teaching kids to be violent. There are many people who believe that video games are the reason kids become violent, but on the other side there are people that think that video games have nothing to do with violence that violence could be hereditary. So to sum up what i think on this article, i think that the article could have been a lot better if they included other points of view if they talked about how the talk shows host felt about this article it would open the article up for more thought and not be so much on sided.
ReplyDelete-Stephen Streets
I believe that this article made a good argument. The author, G2geek, presented the idea, but also said many times that it needed alot more research, and it was a fairly new idea. While I agree, that it does need more research, I also agree with the idea of emotional rhetoric. I have seen first hand how watching overly argumentative political shows can make someone who is mentally unstable more negative. I make it a point not to watch shows like this for a reason, and it is that they do seem to grind the mind a little to much. I believe it is unhealthy, and I could see how it could push someone over the edge. Also, really, all television, not just political shows, is at the hands of the government, and gate keepers who control what is shown in the media. There should be more research looking into how it all effects people, especially those who are weak minded, or on medicine like most of the country. Overall, directing anger on political tv shows isn't doing any good for anyone. It is just fueling negativity, and negativity tends to be so bright that it gets hard to see reason.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of stochastic terrorism is really outlandish. to think that someone who has a tv show like glen beck or bill oreily is responsible for all these murders just because they voice their opinons on there show is crazy. however the writer G2 Geek does make a good arguement. when he says "One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act. While their action may have been statistically predictable, the specific person and the specific act are not predictable. G2Geek even sates what the scholastic terrorist could say in his defense "The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do." I would think that the writer g2 geek would be a conservative based on his views. How this relates to what happened in Tucson, Arizona is that the incident in Tucson was about inducingg speech. I dont think this is a way to corral free speech i think its more of a way to control dangerous potential threats to the country. i think this because the authors more concerned with the fact that people are being killed like in the article when G2geek provides four lone wolves to prove his theory: David Atkinson (shot 9 people at a Unitarian Church; Richard Poplawski (shot 5 Pittsburgh police officers); Scott Roeder (shot and killed a gynecologist in his church) to stop abortions; and Brian Williams (shot a California Highway Patrol officer when stopped on the way to assault members of two liberal non profit). I think this blog does fit the idea of Mature Reasoning that we described in cass because the author tells both sides of the case saying that the talk show hosts could say that theyre not responsible for their audience.
ReplyDeleteI never thought that speaking a language would change the way you think. The only time speaking changes my mood or the way I think is when I am trying to learn a language other than English. It makes me think irrationally due to the anger I have due to the genders and all the detail that is not as important in the English language. Before reading this article I always thought that the way you think has an impact on the way you speak. For example more rural areas where life is more relaxed have a much less “academic” way of speaking than people who live in high population areas. Their is of corse the exception of class and education boundaries as well. I think that language is shaped by a culture and the language reflects their way of thinking about stuff and the way they see things. So speaking a new language can change the way you look at things because you are putting another peoples twist on whatever you are talking about. I also think that many of the difference is language does not have as much affect as this article leads you to believe. Most of the time the differences show up in translation and not in what the people are trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteThis argument was made by a Daily Kos diarist named "G2geek" and was publicized on January 10th, 2011. He is sitting on the Democratic side of the political fence because his argument is blaming very liberal talk show hosts for the killing that occurred in Arizona. The reason G2geek wrote this article was to place the blame for the Arizona killings on the highly liberal talk show hosts such as Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly because of their highly suggestive ideas used in their talk shows. If they don't agree with an idea being discussed by another party, they make it well known and furthermore, their viewers will cease to agree with said idea as well. I don't believe that this is a way to corral free speech, I think that it is merely pressing the idea that we need to stop believing everything that we hear in the media, we need to have our own opinions and act like sane adults rather that just going out and killing someone that we don't like. If this idea was able to be proven (lone wolves or human missiles being activated by mass media) then I would believe that this was a way to control dangerous threats in the media but there is no proof. I do agree that these talk show hosts do step over the line from time to time (I don't watch them frequently but will turn them on if I can't find anything better to watch) but I don't believe that they are using ordinary people to carry out their bidding for them. I don't think that this blog fits the idea of mature reasoning that we will discuss in today's class because as I previously stated, there is no evidence to prove that this theory is real nor has been used by the political media.
ReplyDelete-David Hacker
This article is a very one sided essay based on an essay by “G2Geek”, a telecommunications engineer from the San Francisco Bay area. His main point is "The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts." It’s explained that mass media and broadcasters are capable of creating these stochastic terrorists. He really gives no solid facts, just it seems like merely plays a blame game, placing blame on radio and TV personalities. Writing my response to this article right as news of Osama Bin Laden’s death is being announced on TV, his arguments about Bin Laden being dead a while ago are proven false. G2Geek sounds more like a conspiracy theorist than a logical writer who provides facts for their arguments.
ReplyDelete-DylanPalchesko