In today's society people constantly express their feelings, opinions and emotions in an attempt to try to enlighten others about what they believe is right and wrong. Many of these opinions expressed concern topics that are closely related to our society and its problems that people perceive. The author/speaker attempts to motivate the reader/listener to reflect on their own thoughts that they have been instilled to believe. The comment "Hating what we fear... (or disagree with)," by Reginald Fox, provides insight into the reader's mind as to why he believes the words "hate" and "hater" are used too loosely to describe someone with a respectable differing opinion. Fox’s commentary is full of apt examples of “…ways in which 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayWe call these uses of language “linguistic phenomenon”” (28), defined by Bowell and Kemp in Critical Thinking a Concise Guide. These tactics allow the writer to make their point by controlling the path of the topic and connecting with the reader The use of a convincing speech and persuasive style is also referred to as “argumentative forms/tactics and language” (Garcia-Martinez). Some examples of this motivating and persuasive language found in the commentary are: argumentative generalization, rhetorical question argumentative, argumentative recognition, etc. These linguistic phenomena transform Fox's feelings into something tangible, while being done in an informed, impartial and respectful tone. Consequently, in order to appreciate the purposes 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 the definition is the dictionary because it is a book full of countless definitions. The first linguistic phenomenon demonstrated will be the argumentative definition. It is not a dictionary definition as you are used to, but "... a strong manipulative tactic because the writer/speaker attempts to assert what something or someone is based on his own beliefs, judgments or attitudes, according to his own personal argument." It is a self-made definition created by the writer that is a “definition of some thing or phenomenon that tells us the necessary and sufficient conditions for considering it to be that kind of thing” (Bowell, Kemp, 44). Therefore, when evaluating an event, if it does not possess all the characteristics that the writer has provided in his definition then it cannot be that thing. In Reginald Fox's statement entitled “Hating what we fear… (or disagree with),” he provides a very clear argumentative definition of hate. “…with hatred always comes hostility, abuse, violence and death.” The writer is saying that hostility, abuse, violence and death follow hate wherever it goes, but without all four of these characteristics then it is not hate, even if you are missing just one. This form of rhetorical language provides Fox with control not only over the direction of the argument, but also over the reader's perspective. Therefore, since hatred is always accompanied by these four things, 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 everyone is not entirely present, then it is not even hate. This then helps the writer's argument that not everyone who has a different opinion is hateful and isa word that is administered to people's actions with due consideration. As a result, it causes the reader to reflect on what they think or who they believe is hateful, and they soon become enlightened about the differences between hate and disagreement and ultimately agree with Reginald Fox's beliefs. Thought-provoking language is essential for holding the reader's attention and can be achieved through argumentative rhetoric. It is defined as "... employing language that is effective and powerful due to its formal, poetic, emotional, noble, illustrative, humorous, or sarcastic tone or imagery." An example from the Fox article is: “To hate is to possess a deep and focused aversion; an intense, sometimes ineffable hatred that borders on the extreme, fueled by growing noxious mixes of profound antipathy, disrespect and disgust. What the writer is doing and encourages the reader to consider the topic presented. Not everyone is hateful because hate is something disgusting. His words are poetic, the way he compares hatred to an unhealthy mix of indescribable anger, denigration and revulsion, it reads like a story. These words motivate the reader to reanalyze their judgments about people or events they consider hateful. It forces someone to reevaluate their morality and reflect: “are people really hateful or do we just not like opinions that differ from our own?” The heavy use of language distracts the reader from his original opinion and moves him in the direction of the writer's thoughts. Something to note is the definition provided in the textbook Critical Thinking A Concise Guide by Tracy Bowell and Gary Kemp. Rhetoric is stated to be “…a written attempt to persuade” (46) and “…something that does not attempt to provide good reasons for the belief, desire, or outcome,” (46). The problem is that this argumentative tactic is not used exclusively for persuasion, but is employed to enlighten and provoke the reader to think. Some writers use long arguments to try to get their point across, but this isn't always necessary because a single argument can be just as powerful. This is called the use of argumentative diction, "...makes a purposeful, calculated, and powerful use of a particular single word that represents something greater than the word itself..." An example from Fox's article would be: "Hate (hate) is a black, blasphemous, brutal and evil word that is becoming all too common.” The word that draws the reader's attention is black because it provokes an image. It makes evil seem like a hidden, spiteful place and no return. Therefore, when that word is used to describe someone (hateful), it is extremely offensive because it has a cynical connotation that no one would want to be associated with. As a result, a very powerful word will jump out at the reader and take notice of them all the connotations that accompany the challenging statement, thus motivating him to reflect on his own beliefs When presenting his opinion, the writer/speaker should take into account all the facts and avoid generalizing because the reader may react badly to such general statements. The next linguistic phenomenon is argumentative generalization which is: “…when a writer/speaker intentionally or unintentionally makes a broad, broad, all-purpose observation or conclusion about something or someone – a statement about a religious group, a political group, generations or genders, an event or occurrence, etc." It is very easy to draw a generalized conclusion about an event or a person and it is very easy to agree if the reader does not carefully look at the information provided. A notable example is the one provided from Fox: “These four constantly follow hate,they necessarily follow it, they 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 gravity of the word hate and the fact that people who disagree with someone's statement are not hateful because all of these characteristics should follow their actions. Fox provides an insight into how powerful the word hate is and more encourages the reader to reflect on their own emotions/feelings towards that word now that they have a better understanding of what it really means, for the writer, to be hateful. Since Fox uses such challenging language, he can get the reader to agree, but his distorted thoughts also get the reader to disagree with him because he doesn't consider all aspects of hate. A reader may argue that hatred is present without death and does not need to result in such extreme measures to be recognized and, as a result, the argument is weakened. When a writer deploys statistics in his or her argument it can have a great influence on the reader because it demonstrates that additional research has been conducted on the topic which gives 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 century, and with Daesh in the 21st ”. Even if the reader doesn't initially recognize the references they read about those dates, it might encourage them to do further research on their own and enlighten them with new intelligence. After reading the historical disagreements, the reader begins to better interpret the fact that disagreements are normal and common in society, even many years ago, with so many disagreements that not all of those people are hateful. Furthermore, different opinions are something to fight for and if people like Cesar Chavez or Martin Luther King had never spoken their minds, we wouldn't be here now. If someone who disagrees is hateful does that mean that anyone who holds a different opinion has, since the beginning of time, sought to encourage: violence, abuse, hostility and death? While a reader is engaged in a literary work it is easy to lose focus of the main point or argument. A linguistic tactic used by writers to refocus the reader's attention is called an argumentative direct statement. It is defined as “…a concise, immediate, and clearly expressed statement by the writer/speaker.” This tactic gives the reader direct insight into the author's beliefs, conclusions, and emotions. An example demonstrated by Fox's comment is: “Yet more and more Americans are increasingly being labeled “haters” because they have a different opinion; their honest feelings are characterized as “hate”.” After reading this sentence the reader cannot question Fox's judgments; clearly believes that hate is used too freely to describe anyone who disagrees with the majority's beliefs. This is the whole point of this linguistic phenomenon, the reader should never question or take the position of the writer because he is clearly stating his point of view. Fox is open with his emotions because this connects 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 to reinforce the reader's understanding and the writer's point of view. . A rhetorical game calledattempts at argumentative illustration, “…to help the reader/listener not only visualize the topic or idea being considered, but to help him or her better understand it by considering specific examples and/or instances that show and are not limited to tell. " In Fox's work he provides some examples of people he witnessed being called hateful for having their own opinions: "I saw it applied to my friend...who openly shared with a group of parents who doubted whether DACA should be rendered null or void." ..." and, "I saw it applied to a disapproving and fearful old pastor, 86 years on this Earth and 62 in the clergy, telling his flock that our family values, our social, cultural, and sexual boundaries, our traditions, and personal and community identities were collapsing…” With each example, it is as if Fox is telling a story that illustrates his thesis. He essentially allows the stories of others to do the argumentative work for him him and once a reader comes across the example of the old pastor and him facing accusations of "hate", it is difficult to accept such claims because now the reader understands how real people are affected by someone else's senseless judgment. This type of evidence is compelling because the reader can put themselves in perspective of every time they have found themselves disagreeing with a popular opinion and know that it was not hateful and it would be difficult to accept being unfairly accused of such a powerful emotion. An argument is not something that one simply does or has but is an experience or a phenomenon, it is a moment in which 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 appear so, because if they fail to recognize all sides of an argument, it will turn off the reader/listener due to their anti-holistic view attitude . To avoid this biased approach, a writer can use a tactic called argumentative recognition which "...occurs when a writer/speaker attempts to acknowledge, or admit, another's idea/response to what is being discussed or debated" . As Fox does in his commentary, after giving numerous examples to demonstrate how the term "hater" is used in general, he states: "But I could be wrong." He doesn't want to seem pushy and ignorant to his readers, who may have a different opinion than his, so he acknowledges that, although he has articulated his emotions into arguments, he may be wrong, which makes him seem sympathetic. judgments of others. This tactic keeps the reader intrigued in 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 with the topic, the writer can ask the reader questions. to reflect on and respond to. An argumentative rhetorical question, “…is designed to have a persuasive 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 dispenses a great form of rhetorical question, and it's perfectly placed at the end of the comment and admits, "But I could be wrong." After you have provided all your strongest evidence and main points, encourage the reader to go back and review all of your work and draw their own conclusions on the topic. This tactic focuses on the “real life discussion” aspect because it's as if the writer is right there and the reader is exchanging ideas. Referring to a previous event or someone who is noteworthy based on the topic at hand reinforces the writer's point. view because it makes them seem knowledgeable about the topic. The use of.