In today's society, people are constantly expressing their feelings, opinions, and emotions in an attempt to enlighten others about what they believe they are good and evil. Many of these opinions expressed are concerns and topics closely related to our society and its perceived problems by people. The author/speaker is trying to get the reader/listener to think about their own thoughts that have been instilled in them. The comment “Hating what we fear…(or disagree with)” by Reginald Fox gives insight into the reader's mind as to why he thinks the words “hate” and “ hateful” are used too loosely to describe anyone. with a respectable dissenting opinion. Fox's commentary is replete with insightful examples of how particular uses of language can serve to obscure what speakers and writers are trying to convey. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay We call these uses of language “linguistic phenomena” (28), defined by Bowell and Kemp in Critical Thinking a Concise Guide. These tactics allow the writer to get their point across while controlling the flow of the argument and connecting with the reader. The use of compelling speech and persuasive style is also called “argumentative forms/tactics and language” (Garcia-Martinez). Some examples of this motivating and persuasive language found in commentary are: argumentative generalization, argumentative rhetorical question, argumentative acknowledgment, etc. These linguistic phenomena transform Fox's feelings into something tangible, while being done in a competent, impartial, and respectful tone. Therefore, to be able to appreciate the objectives of these linguistic tactics, one must be able to recognize and understand, not what a writer is talking about, but how he is talking. The first thing that comes to someone's mind when they hear a definition is the dictionary, because it is a book filled with countless definitions. The first linguistic phenomenon demonstrated will be the argumentative definition. This is not a dictionary definition as we are used to, but "...a strong manipulation tactic because the writer/speaker is trying to state what something is or someone according to their own beliefs, judgments or attitudes – according to their personal argument. » It is a definition created by the writer which is a “definition of something or phenomenon tells us the necessary and sufficient conditions for considering it as that kind of thing” (Bowell, Kemp, 44). Therefore, when evaluating an event, if it does not have all the characteristics provided by the author in his definition, it cannot be that thing. In Reginald Fox's statement titled "Hating What We Fear... (or Disagree With)", he gives a very clear argumentative definition of hatred. “…with hatred comes hostility, abuse, violence and death at all times. » The author says that hostility, abuse, violence, and death follow hatred wherever it goes, but without these four characteristics, it is not hatred, even if you are only missing one. 'A. This form of rhetorical language gives Fox control over not only the direction of the argument, but also the reader's point of view. Therefore, since hatred is always accompanied by these four elements, just because someone has a different opinion does not make them hateful, according to Fox, but hatred is a manifestation of hostility, abuse,violence and death and unless all are fully present, neither one nor the other. it's hatred. This then supports the author's argument that not all people with a different opinion are hateful and it is a word that is administered to people's actions with appropriate consideration. Therefore, it causes the reader to think about what or who they think is hateful, and they quickly become enlightened about the differences between hatred and disagreement and eventually come to agree with Reginald Fox's beliefs. Thought-provoking language is essential for grabbing the reader's attention and can be accomplished through argumentative rhetoric. It is defined as “…employing effective and powerful language because of its formal, poetic, emotional, noble, illustrative, humorous or sarcastic tones or images.” An example from Fox's article is: “To hate is to possess an intentional and deep-seated dislike; an intense, sometimes ineffable hatred that borders on the extreme, fueled by a growing and noxious mixture of deep dislike, disrespect and disgust. What the writer does and encourages the reader to consider the argument presented. Not everyone is hateful because hate is a disgusting thing. His words are poetic, the way he compares hatred to an ill-prepared mixture of indescribable rage, depreciation and revulsion, it feels like a story. These words motivate the reader to reanalyze their judgments about people or events they consider hateful. It forces one to re-evaluate their morality and ask themselves, "Are people really hateful or do we just not like opinions that differ from ours?" The intense use of language distracts the reader from their original opinion and points them in the direction of the writer's thoughts. It is worth noting the definition provided in the textbook Critical Thinking A Concise Guide by Tracy Bowell and Gary Kemp. It is claimed that rhetoric is “…a written attempt to persuade” (46) and “…something that does not attempt to give good reasons for a belief, desire, or outcome” (46). The problem is that this argumentative tactic is not only used to persuade, but it is used to enlighten and provoke the reader into thinking. Some writers use long arguments to try to get their point across, but this isn't always necessary because just one can be just as powerful. This is called the use of argumentative diction, "...makes deliberate, calculated, and powerful use of a particular word that represents something greater than the word itself..." An example from the Fox article would read: “Hate (hate) is a dark, blasphemous, brutal and crude word that is now becoming all too common. The word that appeals to the reader is black because it provokes an image. The word black gives the impression that evil is a hidden, malicious and unreturnable place. Therefore, when this word is used to describe someone (obnoxious), it is extremely insulting because it has a cynical connotation that no one would like to be associated with. Therefore, a very powerful word will jump out at the reader and they will consider all the connotations that accompany the thought-provoking statement, thereby motivating them to think about their beliefs. When presenting his or her opinion, the writer/speaker should consider all the facts and avoid generalizing as the reader may react badly to such general statements. The following linguistic phenomenon is argumentative generalization that occurs: “…when a writer/speaker makes, intentionally or unintentionally, a broad, sweeping, and versatile observation or conclusion about something or someone – a claim about a religious group , a political group, generations orgenerations. genres, an event or an occurrence, etc. It is very easy to draw a general conclusion about an event or people and very easy to agree if the reader does not carefully observe the information provided. A notable example is that provided by Fox: "These four constantly follow hatred, necessarily follow it, cannot help but follow it, and the result is always terrible. There are no exceptions. » He is referring to his definition that hatred is followed by hostility, abuse, violence and death. Fox is trying to make a significant impact with this statement, by implying the severity of the word hate and that people who disagree with someone's statement are not hateful because all of these characteristics should follow their actions . Fox provides insight into the power of the word hate and how it encourages the reader to think about their emotions/feelings towards that word now that they have a better understanding of what it really means, to the writer, be hateful. Since Fox uses thought-provoking language, it may lead the reader to agree, but his biased thoughts also cause a reader to disagree with him because he doesn't consider all aspects of hatred. A reader may argue that hatred is present without death and does not need to result in such extreme measures to be recognized and therefore the argument is weakened. When a writer doles out statistics in their argument, it can have a great influence on the reader because it proves that more in-depth research has been done on the topic, giving more credibility to the writer's point of view. An example is Fox's use of historical dates: "Americans disagreed with George III in the 18th century and acted accordingly; they did so with Davis in the 19th century, with Hitler in the 20th, and with ISIS in the 21st .” Even if the reader did not initially recognize the references read on these dates, it might encourage them to further their own research and enlighten them with new information. After reading about historical disagreements, the reader then begins to better interpret that disagreements are normal and common in society, even many years ago, with so much disagreement, not all of these people are hateful. Plus, you have to fight for different opinions and if people like Cesar Chavez or Martin Luther King never voiced their thoughts, we wouldn't be where we are today. If someone who disagrees is hateful, does that mean that anyone with a different opinion, since the dawn of time, has been trying to encourage: violence, abuse, hostility and death? When a reader is engaged in a literary work, it is easy for them to lose focus on the main point or argument. A linguistic tactic used by writers to refocus the reader's attention is called direct argumentative assertion. It is defined as “…a concise and immediate statement, clearly stated by the writer/speaker. » This tactic gives the reader direct insight into the author's beliefs, conclusions, and emotions. An example demonstrated in Fox's comment is: “Yet more and more Americans are increasingly being labeled 'haters' for holding a different opinion; their honest feelings are labeled as “hate.” After reading this sentence, the reader can no longer question Fox's judgments; he clearly believes that hate is used too freely to describe anyone who disagrees with majority beliefs. This is the whole point of this linguistic phenomenon; the reader must never question or assume thewriter's position because he clearly states his point of view. Fox is open with his emotions because it brings him closer to the reader because both people are on the same page. A writer can explain and talk about events or situations, but once examples are given, it helps reinforce the reader's understanding and the writer's point of view. . A rhetorical game called argumentative illustration attempts to "...help the reader/listener not only visualize the topic or idea under consideration, but also understand it better by considering specific examples and/or cases that show and do not just not to tell. " In Fox's work, he gives some examples of people he witnessed being called hateful for having their own opinions: "I saw this applied to my friend... who openly shared with a group of parents that he doubted whether or not DACA should be made void. ..." and "I saw it applied to a disapproving and fearful old pastor, 86 years old on this Earth and 62 years in the clergy, who told his flock that our family values, our social, cultural and sexual boundary, our traditions and personal and community identities were all collapsing…” With each example, it’s as if Fox is telling a story that illustrates his point. He allows other people's stories to essentially do the argumentative work for him and once a reader comes across the example of the old pastor and faces accusations of being a "hater", it is difficult to accept such assertions because now the reader understands how real people are affected by someone else's foolish judgment. This type of evidence is compelling because the reader can put themselves in perspective each time they disagree with a popular opinion and know that it was not hateful and that it would be difficult to agree to be fully wrongly accused of such a powerful emotion. is not something one simply does or has, but it is an experience or phenomenon, it is any time someone tries to express their thoughts. When someone expresses their thoughts, it is important that they try not to be too biased, or at least make it seem that way, because if they fail to acknowledge all sides of an argument, it turns off the reader/listener due to its anti-holistic vision attitude. To avoid this biased approach, a writer can use a tactic called argumentative recognition which, “…occurs when one writer/speaker attempts to recognize, or acknowledge, another's idea/response to what is being argued or discussed.” As Fox does in his commentary, after giving numerous examples to demonstrate how the term "hateful" is used loosely, he states: "But I could be wrong. » He does not want to appear arrogant and ignorant to his readers, who may have an opinion different from his. So he recognizes that even though he expressed his emotions in an argument, he may be wrong, which makes him appear understanding. the judgments of others. This tactic keeps the reader intrigued by the commentary and entices them to continue reading instead of ignoring Fox and his truths because they are one-sided. To engage a reader and encourage them to engage in the argument, the writer can ask the reader questions. think and respond. An argumentative rhetorical question “…is designed to have a compelling effect on the reader/listener in that the writer/speaker asks a question but does not provide an answer, leaving the reader/listener to think about it.” Fox asks a great form of rhetorical question, and it's perfectly placed at the end of the comment that he admits: "But I could be wrong." » After having given all his best proofs.