- Giroux claims that political paranoia is alive and well today because Americans lack the ability to think critically and listen to opposing arguments without self-destructing. This disconnect between citizens has led to the deletion of public spheres and general disarray of politics in America. Roller’s main claim is that it is hard for American’s to decipher between real news and false information, and that click bait leads to increased confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when information is used only to aid in one’s already preconceived opinions ,rather than provide context for other opinions. Giroux’s essay functions as the next chapter into how political paranoia presents itself today, although I think it is better suited as a conversation to Dimitriadis’s essay. Roller’s essay did not fit as well into Hofstadter’s essay, but some key points like the confirmation bias was helpful in assisting how it paranoia is relevant in response to outlandish news clips we see on social media. They find common ground in the sense that mass media is elevating political paranoia, and this is due to the lack of education and unwillingness to acknowledge other’s opinions.
- Giroux takes a more cynical approach to Hofstadter’s essay, in that he hints that it is worse than it has ever been and the fault of this lies within preceding generations for improperly teaching critical analysis skills. Roller appeals to the general public by using familiar circumstances, such as the click bait news articles on Facebook to showcase how closed off American’s opinions are from one another. Roller argues that political paranoia is not a fault of ultra-conservatives or liberals, but a fault of the confirmation bias, whereas Giroux agrees that paranoia is more visible in conservatives, like Trump. Giroux, however, steps away from party lines and looks at the affects of lack of education play into the grand scheme of things in response to Hofstadter’s concept of the paranoid style. Then evaluate: where do the writers disagree with each other in the way that they apply Hofstadter’s claims?
- Giroux takes a more cohesive and persuasive stance in response to Hofstadter’s essay because he has a fully formed claim and can explain it in relation to how it has grown and what the future holds. Roller, on the other hand, just presents the facts and doesn’t give much personal insight or “looking into the future” context. I found that Giroux’s claims that people are unwilling to educate the future generations on critical thinking because it goes against their train of thought, and so on, was persuasive because of the commonality in this cyclical thinking.
Pre Write Short Paper 2.3
by
Tags:
Leave a Reply