« “E Pluribus Dorm”: Conor Friedersdorf on dorm life at elite schools | Main | Polynomials and apple pie: Andrew Hacker on obligatory algebra »

08/25/2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

MD

Novak says he was wrong about supporting White Nationalists freedom of speech because they committed acts of violence and barbarity instead of peacefully protesting.He is right that violent protests should be condemned, However he tries to make the argument that all the white nationalists were heavily armed and planned to commit violence. This is not persuasive as may pictures from the event counter his chosen photograph. Another factor he fails to consider is that any protest without proper Security measures are very combustible and can easily turn violent despite the original intent much like Chancellorsville. In conclusion Novak does a poor job of representing both sides of the conflict because he puts a very biased (but popular) spin on the events.

Michael Concepcion

Last week, Novak admits his belief was wrong when he stated the alt-right should be allowed to have a rally and spread their ideology. Novak switches his position from last week when he saw the violent and abusive things the white supremacist did at the rally to non-violent protesters. Novak now believes the alt-right does not use verbal communication to spread their ideology. They only use intimidation, physical abuse, and harassment to fight for their beliefs. The evidence he uses is extremely persuasive highlighting how the alt-right physically abused non-violent, peaceful protesters during the rally. Novak now believes the alt-right intentions from the start was to incite violence and agitate the community as they applied for permission to hold the rally. Novak persuades the reader the alt-right should not be allowed to host rallies at all because their intentions are harmful to citizens.
MMC TTH

LM

Brendan Novak of The Cavalier Daily, had previously written an article that defended the rights of white supremacists to assemble and participate in free speech. It is only after the most recent riots in Charlottesville, that Novak is saying that he was wrong. It was his initial belief that they would be peaceful but he now says that they have "no interest in participating in open discourse". Though his change in opinion may seem abrupt, it may be an accurate depiction of the Charlottesville community's outlook on the current situation. The Cavalier Daily is able to offer a unique perspective in this way since they are located in Charlottesville, VA. Novak makes the events seem more personal by framing them as first person accounts. He uses phrases such as "we witnessed" and describes events from in the context of the student body. Even though many people were involved in these riots he specifically mentions that the 'alt-right' group was "physically assaulting students who were organizing peacefully". Overall, the author's take on the situation is incomparable to most others due to the fact of his locale. Being a part of the affected community adds not only relevance to his opinion, but also credibility.

MLM TTH

Abdullatif

A few weeks ago Novak start out by admitting that he was wrong about supporting whit nationalists. Novak switches his position from last week, when he tries to make argument that all the white nationalists were heavily armed and planned.Overall the authors says that all-right should not be allowed to host. because their intentions are harmful.

D

I think Novak has done some more research on the subject on the white nationalist we change our own options I a greed Novak

Jesse Igwe

Novak can be compared to Blanda’s ideas since it allows people of diverse groups to express their opinions regarding political actions which are allowed by the first amendment. Novak stated that he was wrong for supporting the white supremacists because he believed it was wrong to grant assemble to groups that advertise harm and violence. Furthermore, Novak views are more one sided of himself choosing a side against the white supremacists harassing students and destroying the peace around while in Blanda’s document it showed us to listen to both sides of the argument while identifying the pros and cons even if you thought the other opinion was completely wrong, you could still learn from it. Continually, Novak’s viewpoint showed that it changed from the beginning supporting the alts and then tremendously going against them due to the experiences he was facing with terrorism and injuries towards others. Highlighting the point of how foolish Novak claims he was at the beginning, he learned from the words and actions of the agitators such as what Blanda’s moral of her document was identifying. Lastly, Novak and Blanda’s documents share some of the same viewpoints and differ in a few, but Novak persuades the cruel treatment of the alts towards the people.

Perla Medrano

Novak and Blanda understand the big picture when it comes to others who oppose you. Novak after experiencing such an event does not agree that the “alt- right” should get to protest for a change because all they cause is more problems with their barbaric actions like the death of three people and dozens injured. My whole life I heard people say “you give one hand and take away the other” and now I understand because what is exactly what the white supremacists did at the protest. It is concerning that people try to put themselves in their opponents shoes, but the other side just does not seem to grasp the issue. This makes the “alt- right” ignorant for not understanding you and for not doing their part when it comes to solving an issue.

Henry Martinez

In these articles, Novak and Blanda have offered harsh critiques of society’s response to opposing viewpoints for current media and social interactions. In discussions of opposing viewpoints, one controversial issue has been the use of our first amendment. On the one hand, Blanda focuses on the argument that we are all entitled to our own perspective without being considered completely wrong as he demonstrated when writing, “Because refusing to truly understand those who disagree with you is intellectual laziness and worse, is usually worse than what you’re accusing the Other Side of doing. On the other hand, Novak focuses more on the right to voice out our perspective even if it is wrong such as when he writes, “The way I see it, white supremacists, despite their irrefutably toxic ideology, are entitled to the same constitutional liberties as anyone else.” Both sides agree in the sense of the ability to believe in your own viewpoint and the ability to express it but differ in the sense on how it is expressed. One focuses on expression without incorrectness and the other focuses on expression due to the right of expression.

julyssa godina

With the respect to the authors’ objective, the two articles do not completely negate each other. Both acknowledge being open minded for others’ beliefs. Novak writes “Their use of intimidation, terror and violence in the pursuit of their goals more than justify this categorization.” This group had rather menace intention and actions that were governed by violence and should not deserve to be tolerated. In Blanda’s article the reader is challenged to “…consider that the people who don’t feel the same way you do might be right” Blanda dwells on acceptance and is considerate of multiple factors that influence beliefs. The importance of being open minded is disused in both articles, but Novak believes it is only acceptable to a certain extent, he draws the line at blatant violence.

helis lezama

Novak and Blanda both wrote articles about how people react when they don't tend to understand your point of view. In this article, it discuss the controversial issue of the first amendment. People can't protest or speak up with out being violence. Novak, speaks on how people having difference perspectives can make them close minded by not wanting to see the other point of view. They both connect by both agreeing in that people should be more open minded and put themself in each other shoes before making something into violence.

Regina Padilla

When comparing Novak’s views with Blanda’s, you will notice that they both agree that every person deserves to voice their opinion without the judgements of others. Both articles mention that any individual should be able to express themselves, regardless of personal opinions. Blanda insists “When someone communicates that they are not “on our side” our first reaction is to run away or dismiss them as stupid.” In other words, Blanda believes that every opinion should be respected and heard. When it comes to differences, Novak’s article acknowledges that not everyone has the interest to keep peace when it comes to voicing their opinion, which is something that Blanda never touched on. Novak talks about the tragic event that happened Charlottesville, where 3 people were killed, caused by white supremacist and how at first Novak supported their first amendment rights, but later noticed that those people did not intent to have an open discourse. Novak admitted that he was wrong to encourage them.

Emma Sorto

Novak begins his article by stating he is wrong about believing that the ‘alt-right’ rally should continue on due to the violent nature of the rally. What made Novak’s article stand out from the rest was the fact that he admitted he was wrong and learned from his mistakes: he even provided details to the events that took place at the rally and explained why he now realizes he was wrong. Novak writes, “the shocking, gut wrenching images coming out of my town” in order to showcase the impact of the violent events had on his own well-being, considering he references Charlottesville as his town. Novak establishes his thoughts as his own by using first person point of view words and includes quotes from his previous article that he now believes is incorrect. The protection under freedom of speech should end whenever a peaceful protest turns into harsh words being thrown around and violence coming into play. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and is allowed to voice those opinions but protection from the first amendment ends when events turn for the worst.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

By signing up you agree to W. W. Norton’s
privacy policy and terms of use.

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan