Download Free Dastardly Discourse Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Dastardly Discourse and write the review.

Screaming at the television, compulsively firing off tart little tweets, and blogging until we are blue; these signal that we are feeling the effects of dastardly discourse. We live in a world where people feel entitled to use words to hurt, exploit, and publicly degrade humanity. We daily consume rhetoric that makes a mockery of decency and civility. Leaders of key social institutions, including government, news media, and religious organizations, who are supposed to be role models of reasoned and compassionate communication are often the ones with the loudest lies and the hardest hate. We can change the channel. We can unplug. We can even encourage others to do the same. We may not do so, however, until we grasp what is fundamentally at risk in our current norms of communication. Nasty words are just the tip of the dastardly discourse iceberg. What lies beneath is a steady flow of propaganda that aims to control our personal narratives. This book is about that propaganda, the importance of owning our own narratives, and improving our own rhetorical capital—the ability to analyze and evaluate information—for the sake of sustaining human dignity, decency, and civility.
Working in the tradition of analytic philosophy, Alexander Brown argues that many different forms of political communication (or anti-communication) that often infuriate the public can also be ethically or morally objectionable. These forms include question dodging, offering scripted answers, stonewalling, not listening, disseminating propaganda, pandering, being insincere, giving false denials, issuing revisionist interpretations, refusing to take responsibility, never apologising, boasting, and gaslighting. Brown invokes a host of normative reasons including those having to do with epistemic arrogance, interference in autonomy, and violating the right to be heard. This is not to say that, all things considered, politicians should never engage in dubious political communication. Sometimes these are necessary evils. Brown argues, however, that further moral inquiry is needed to show why they are evils, and to determine when the use of these rhetorical tactics can be excessive, unreasonable, or out of place. Key Features: • Identifies and conceptualises forms of dubious political communication • Develops an ethical evaluation of political communication • Considers possible justifications for the use of dubious political communication • Makes practical recommendations on how to regulate unethical political communication
First published in 1848, Christian Discourses is a quartet of pieces written and arranged in contrasting styles. Parts One and Three, "The Cares of the Pagans" and "Thoughts That Wound from Behind--for Upbuilding," serve as a polemical overture to Kierkegaard's collision with the established order of Christendom. Yet Parts Two and Four, "Joyful Notes in the Strife of Suffering" and "Discourses at the Communion on Fridays," are reassuring affirmations of the joy and blessedness of Christian life in a world of adversity and suffering. Written in ordinary language, the work combines simplicity and inwardness with reflection and presents crucial Christian concepts and presuppositions with unusual clarity. Kierkegaard continued in the pattern that he began with his first pseudonymous esthetic work, Either/Or, by pairing Christian Discourses with The Crisis, an unsigned esthetic essay on contemporary Danish actress Joanne Luise Heiberg.
Is much of the current dysfunction in our political system attributable to the problematic discourse of politicians, pundits, and journalists? These authors on legal and political discourse say yes. This book contains essays by some of the best scholars of political communication that examine modern-day American political discourse. The contributors address what is problematic in our political discourse and what has resulted in unprecedented levels of gridlock, discord, and hostility, covering everything from the incivility of Congress to the spectacle of celebrity politicians... the arrogance of Republican and Democratic presidents to the difficulties of grassroots groups hoping to change the status quo... and the partisan shaping of news coverage to the growing influence of political comedians. This work provides a frank, hard-nosed look at what needs fixing, offers a critical lens from knowledgeable writers to help those frustrated with our political system to better understand why our discourse is so troubled, and lays out suggestions for reclaiming the commonwealth. Anyone interested in politics, government, or communication will benefit from learning how recent developments have created a "perfect storm" that is troubling the waters of our democracy.
In its first edition, winner of the 2016 Edward Sapir Book Prize from the Society for Linguistic Anthropology of the American Anthropological Association Discourse Analysis Beyond the Speech Event introduces a new approach to discourse analysis. In this innovative work, Wortham and Reyes argue that discourse analysts should look beyond fixed speech events and consider the development of discourses over time. Drawing on theories and methods from linguistic anthropology and related fields, this book is the first to present a systematic methodological approach to conducting discourse analysis of linked events, allowing researchers to understand not only individual events but also the patterns that emerge across them. This new edition: Draws on theories and methods from linguistic anthropology and related fields; Presents the first systematic methodological approach to doing discourse analysis of linked events; Provides easy-to-use tools and techniques for analyzing discourse both within and across events; Offers transparent procedures and clear illustrations to show how the approach can be applied to analyze three types of data: ethnographic, archival, and new media; Includes a new chapter focusing on the discourse analysis of contemporary nationalist new media data. Updated and revised for the second edition, this book is essential reading for advanced students and researchers working in the area of discourse analysis.
This book discusses the revolutionary broadening of concepts of freedom of press and freedom of speech in Great Britain and in America in the late eighteenth century, in the period that produced state declarations of rights and then the First Amendment and Fox's Libel Act. The conventional view of the history of freedoms of press and speech is that the common law since antiquity defined those freedoms narrowly, and that Sir William Blackstone in 1769, and Lord Chief Justice Mansfield in 1770, faithfully summarized the common law in giving a very narrow definition of those freedoms as mere liberty from prior restraint and not liberty from punishment after something was printed or spoken. This book proposes, to the contrary, that Blackstone carefully selected the narrowest definition that had been suggested in popular essays in the prior seventy years, in order to oppose the growing claims for much broader protections of press and speech. Blackstone misdescribed his summary as an accepted common law definition, which in fact did not exist. A year later, Mansfield inserted a similar definition into the common law for the first time, also misdescribing it as a long-accepted definition, and soon misdescribed the unique rules for prosecuting sedition as having an equally ancient pedigree. Blackstone and Mansfield were not declaring the law as it had long been, but were leading a counter-revolution about the breadth of freedoms of press and speech, and cloaking it as a summary of a narrow common law doctrine that in fact was nonexistent. That conflict of revolutionary view and counter-revolutionary view continues today. For over a century, a neo-Blackstonian view has been dominant, or at least very influential, among historians. Contrary to those narrow claims, this book concludes that the broad understanding of freedoms of press and speech was the dominant context of the First Amendment and of Fox's Libel Act, and that it enjoyed greater historical support.