Hi guys,
I have posted one of my practice pieces for Argument Analysis. Is it alright if someone can mark it and give me some feedback? We have a SAC on this the second week of next term, and I feel like though I'm very much screwed. By the way, I have attached the two articles. Thanks!
So here's my piece:
The issue of the legislation by the Queensland Government to deregister vehicles with offensive advertisements has recently caused much debate, in particular towards those who are concerned that their ‘freedom of speech’ is being undermined. The newly formed legislation seeks to target such companies which uses vehicles with indecent slogans, such as the well-known ‘Wicked Campers’. The online blog ‘Wicked Games’ by journalist Clementine Ford contends that the Queensland Government’s legislation to prevent companies from emblazoning such slogans onto their vehicles is the right choice. She argues critically that society cannot tolerate slogans that normalise violence and social segregation, mainly aiming to target an audience of female rights supporters. However, Victorian Greens MP Nina Springle’s Huffington Post Blog ‘Other States Must Buy-In To Queensland’s Wicked New Legislation’, published on the 29th July 2016, extends on Ford’s contention, and seeks to target people with left-wing ideologies. She addresses that while the Queensland Government’s legislation is indeed an ‘ingenious solution’, other states, including Victoria, must also act against such companies that have vehicles which advertise such slogans.
Like many opinion pieces in blogs, Ford immediately establishes her frustrated and outraged tone in her piece. She argues that although companies such as the Wicked Campers may believe their offensive slogans to be a form of ‘comedy’, such ‘jokes’ are not acceptable because they only seek to undermine those who are being targeted. She opens her piece with the pun in the headline ‘Wicked Games’, derived from the name of the ‘Wicked’ Campers, seeking to make readers to become aware of her stance that the promotion of the inappropriate advertisements is more than cruel, but a ‘wicked’ act that normalises violence in society. She continues to build upon her argument through the rhetorical question ‘So you think the Wicked Campers ruling is a win for the wowsers?’. By addressing her readers directly with the word ‘you’, Ford encourages them to feel personally invested in the issue of the legislation against offensive advertisements on vehicles in an accusatory manner, positioning them to feel guilty if they oppose her stance, hence encouraging them to accept her argument. Through descriptions companies such as the Wicked Campers as through the use of emotive words such as ‘feral’, she paints these companies in a negative manner by contributing to an impression that they uneducated and lack humanity, positioning her readers to feel disgusted by the actions of these companies and recognise the importance of the Government’s new legislation. Although Ford initially agrees that although there may be a limit in ‘freedom of speech’ and an ‘apparent death of ‘comedy’’ that comes with the legislation in a sarcastic manner, she argues that such jokes are not ‘new or interesting’, but are instead ‘hackneyed tropes’ that seeks to victimise those who are in ‘less power’. By painting such companies and people who make offensive comments as bullies, Ford positions her readers to feel an alarming sense of guilt if they have made such ‘jokes’ themselves. She reasons that people make such offensive comments because the violence ‘will never form a reality in their own lives’ and by providing examples that often women, Indigenous people and people with disabilities are often at the of these ‘jokes’. As such, Ford conveys that the impacts that such comments can have are very pervasive, positioning her readers to agree with her stance for the legislation. By doing so, Ford reinforces her argument that the decision to reinforce the new legislation is very important as society can no longer tolerate companies advertising such offensive slogans that promote violence and undermine those considered with less power.
Ford continues to build upon her case by providing other examples, primarily to do with the misogynistic power of the slogans promoted by such companies. She argues that the advertisements made by the Wicked Campers are not only misogynistic, but also seeks to normalise misogyny, resulting in women’s personal safety being undermined from men’s misuse of their power. Through deductive reasoning that men have ‘nothing to fear from women’ Ford seeks to establish a negative image of men by painting them as having absolute control over women, positioning her female readers to feel a sense of sympathy towards her stance. By tying this image with the exaggeration that women ‘are beaten, raped and killed in huge numbers’ and the use of inclusive language ‘us’, she argues that women are nearly always the centre of the violence inflicted by men, encouraging her female readers to feel a sense of alarm and fear as they are characterised as easy victims of such violence. By undermining men with such an overstatement, Ford seeks to directly attack the Wicked Campers company as the misogynistic slogans are made by men, positioning her female readers to share her sense of outrage towards the actions of such companies. She continues to reinforce this argument by providing numerous other generalised examples the violence that men have inflicted towards women throughout time, employing highly emotive language such as ‘sex slaves’ and ‘murdered’, depicting all women as being victims of violence arising from misogyny. Hence, by positioning her readers to feel a sense of anger towards the misogyny of the advertisements made by the Wicked Campers, Ford once again supports her contention that the legislation is necessary, as it helps to stop such misogyny.
Similar to Ford’s opinion piece, Nina Springle’s opinion piece in the Huffington Post Blog also stresses the importance of the Queensland Government’s new legislation. In a more reasoned tone the Ford, she argues that inciting violence in the form of a joke is not ‘freedom of speech.’ Through the use of logic by highlighting that there is no clear definition of what is considered as freedom of speech and that Australia is deemed to be a ‘multicultural’ society with ‘equal respect’ between both genders, Springle not only seeks to undermine those who are against her stance, but also positions her readers to realise that there is no valid reason to allow such slogans as they only seek to promote violence and hatred. However, unlike Ford, Springle emphasises the detrimental effects the offensive slogans could have on children. By appealing to family values through the descriptions that children will ‘repeat them [the offensive slogans] in the playground’ and parents having to ‘field uncomfortable questions’, she seeks to target parent’s natural desire to protect their children. Furthermore, through the photograph depicting two Wicked Campers vehicles, with one having a slogan ‘If you can’t do it naked, it’s not worth doing!’, Springle provides credibility towards her argument as readers are made aware that such slogans do exist. By connecting the appeal with the photograph, Springle positions readers to agree with her stance on the new legislation being an appropriate solution, reinforcing her argument that offensive advertisements and jokes are not ‘freedom of speech’.
However, whilst Ford emphasises that the new legislation is necessary to prevent the Wicked Campers company from promoting misogyny, Springle argues that all states also need to establish a similar legislation to Queensland. Through the use of an anecdote that she once received a response letter from the Victorian Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, who ‘could not address the issue’ because the Advertising Standard Board is in charge of such issues, she provides a real life example of the lack of responsibility by the Victorian Government towards preventing companies from advertising such slogans. This positions the readers to feel a sense of urgency towards the need to establish a similar legislation in Victoria, and also a sense of anger as they are made aware of the Government’s lack of action to tackle such concerning issues. She continues to build upon her argument by attacking the Advertising Standards Board with the use of the metaphor that it ‘is essentially a toothless tiger’, suggesting that the Board has almost no power when it comes to deciding companies that have breached its rules, as the Wicked Campers will ‘ensure that its vehicles are registered interstate’. This dramatic comparison seeks to evoke a sense of urgency amongst readers, inclining them to agree with the Springle that there must be another alternative to stop the Wicked Campers from advertising their slogans in Victoria. By doing so, Springle reinforces her argument that other states must consider a similar legislation to Queensland to stop the Wicked Campers from promoting its offensive slogans.
Both Ford and Springle agree that the Queensland Government’s new legislation to deregister vehicles with offensive advertisement is a necessary act. Nevertheless, each piece comes to the debate from a different perspective and presents a different overall contention. Ford takes on a more critical approach towards the importance of the legislation, arguing that society can no longer tolerate offensive advertisements that promote violence and misogyny. However, Springle, in a more reasoned manner, extends on this view, arguing that all other states and territories must also introduce a similar legislation to prevent companies such as the Wicked Campers from advertising their slogans more efficiently.
Home
Help
Search
Login
