Tarring Opponents as Extremists Essay Assignment
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Tarring Opponents as Extremists Essay Assignment
In 10 Sentences
After reading “Tarring Opponents as Extremist Can Really Work” in this week’s Readings and Presentations section, focus on the claim that “sometimes simply calling advocates feminists or environmentalists is sufficient to tap into extremist associations people already have about those groups.” Do you have extremist associations with labels such as feminist, environmentalist, or racist? Do you see the ideas of the essay in today’s political climate? Could you be convinced to reject an idea if extremists are associated with it? Share your thoughts with your classmates.
Tarring Opponents as Extremists Really Can Work
Political scientists have determined that labeling supporters of stands that otherwise might be unassailable can have a sleazy efficacy, although not everyone falls for tactic.
by Emily Badger
Pacific Standard, December 7, 2011
Back in 2002, when the male-only, members-only Augusta National golf club was picked to host the Masters Tournament, advocates of equality for women were taken aback. They wanted the tournament moved or the storied golf club opened to women. And their cause resonated with many Americans in an age when the public supports little outright gender discrimination.
The campaign ran into a hitch, though: for many people, it became synonymous with Martha Burk, a feminist leader whose name frequently appeared in the national press alongside words like “radical,” “extreme,” and “dogmatic.”
That story is a classic example of a tactic prevalent in politics. Tar a policy’s proponents as “extreme,” and maybe the policy will start to look that way, too. Political strategists clearly bank on this idea. And new political science research reveals that it works on many of us.
Researchers Thomas Nelson, Gregory Giada, and Joseph Lyons studied the strategy in a paper published in the journal Political Psychology. To understand their findings, it’s helpful to view political disputes — even the Augusta National story — as a clash of conflicting values, in this case gender equality and the rights of private organizations to determine their own rules.
Most values are generally thought to be positive, although people may rank them with different priorities. Most of us are on the same page about freedom, security, equality, and even the environment. No one dislikes those things.
“We think of [values] as kind of rules that can never be violated, sacred rules that must be protected,” Nelson said. “The problem, of course, is you can’t have everything. Sooner or later those things are going to come into conflict. This happens in our everyday lives.”
And it happens constantly in politics.
When two of these values come into conflict — in, say, a policy question pitting national security against personal liberties — strategists must figure out how to advocate one at the expense of the other. No one wants to go on record attacking the value of security, or liberty. But you can do the next best thing: attack the people standing near it.
Nelson offers this example: “Everybody loves national parks, everybody loves the environment, nobody wants to be perceived as anti-environment. So, if you are, say, the snowmobile manufacturer, and you want to push for greater access to public land for snowmobiles, you can’t say, ‘Well the environment is stupid, nobody cares about the environment. The only thing that’s important is riding a snowmobile.’”
You could, however, say, “Sporting outdoorsmen may not get to enjoy our national parks this winter because radical environmentalists care more about owls than the local economy.”
Such rhetoric helps ambivalent voters find their way out of a conflict between competing values.
In their study, the researchers had undergraduate students read and respond to an account of the Augusta National dispute with three small changes: one referred to critics of the policy as “people” and “citizens;” another as “radical feminists,” “militant feminists” and “extremists”; and the third with extended descriptions of the type of world such radical feminists advocate (one with co-ed locker rooms!). The policy itself remained constant as these descriptions changed. As a result, the students exposed to the extremist language were less likely to support moving the tournament or welcoming female members to the club — even though a self-assessment of their values would suggest that they might.
The researchers performed similar experiments with opinion pieces and blog posts about environmental issues and immigration.
Most surprising to them was their discovery that sometimes the label itself is enough. Sometimes, simply calling advocates “feminists” or “environmentalists” is sufficient to tap into extremist associations people already have about those groups (perhaps the same negative associations that underlie the odd phenomenon that many people who care about the environment and gender equality don’t want to be called “environmentalists” or “feminists”). Other times, it’s apparently necessary to dress up that label, maybe “wild-eyed radical feminists,” or even “extreme feminists who would go so far as to advocate unisex toilets.”
The authors don’t know where that line is drawn. They also don’t know what distinguishes the people unfazed by this trick from those who are persuaded by it. In their studies, only some of the students were lulled by extremist labels into opposing policies that otherwise align with their values.
Perhaps other voters know the tactic when they see it, or they’ve seen it so many times that extremist labels themselves become off-putting (Nelson calls this the “tactic,” calling out an opponent for using just such a tactic).
“For a lot of people, that does raise a red flag. This looks like a last desperate measure of somebody who doesn’t have anything better to say,” he said. “But what distinguishes those people from others who are susceptible to it?”
In 10 Sentences
After reading “Tarring Opponents as Extremist Can Really Work” in this week’s Readings and
Presentations section, focus on the claim that “sometimes simply calling advocates feminists or
environmentalists are sufficient to tap into
extremist associations people already have about
those groups.” Do you have extremist associations with labels such as feminist?
environmentalist, or racist? Do you see the ideas of the essay in today’s political climate? Could
you be convinced to reject a
n idea if extremists are associated with it? Share your thoughts with
your classmates.
Tarring Opponents as Extremists Really Can Work
Political scientists have determined that labeling supporters of stands that otherwise might be
unassailable can have a sleazy efficacy, although not everyone falls for tactic.
by Emily Badger
Pacific Standard
, December 7, 2011
Back in 2002, when the male
–
only, members
–
only Augusta National golf club was picked to host the
Masters Tournament, advocates of equality for women were taken aback. They wanted the tournament
moved or the storied golf
club opened to women. And their cause resonated with many Americans in an
age when the public supports little outright gender discrimination.
The campaign ran into a hitch, though: for many people, it became synonymous with Martha Burk, a
feminist leader
whose name frequently appeared in the national press alongside words like “radical,”
“extreme,” and “dogmatic.”
That story is a classic example of a tactic prevalent in politics. Tar a policy’s proponents as “extreme,”
and maybe the policy will start to l
oak that way, too. Political strategists clearly bank on this idea. And
new political science research reveals that it works on many of us.
Researchers Thomas Nelson, Gregory Giada, and Joseph Lyons studied the strategy in a paper
published in the journey
al Political Psychology. To understand their findings, it’s helpful to view political
In 10 Sentences
After reading “Tarring Opponents as Extremist Can Really Work” in this week’s Readings and
Presentations section, focus on the claim that “sometimes simply calling advocates feminists or
environmentalists are sufficient to tap into extremist associations people already have about
those groups.” Do you have extremist associations with labels such as feminist?
environmentalist, or racist? Do you see the ideas of the essay in today’s political climate? Could
you be convinced to reject an idea if extremists are associated with it? Share your thoughts with
your classmates.
Tarring Opponents as Extremists Really Can Work
Political scientists have determined that labeling supporters of stands that otherwise might be
unassailable can have a sleazy efficacy, although not everyone falls for tactic.
by Emily Badger
Pacific Standard, December 7, 2011
Back in 2002, when the male-only, members-only Augusta National golf club was picked to host the
Masters Tournament, advocates of equality for women were taken aback. They wanted the tournament
moved or the storied golf club opened to women. And their cause resonated with many Americans in an
age when the public supports little outright gender discrimination.
The campaign ran into a hitch, though: for many people, it became synonymous with Martha Burk, a
feminist leader whose name frequently appeared in the national press alongside words like “radical,”
“extreme,” and “dogmatic.”
That story is a classic example of a tactic prevalent in politics. Tar a policy’s proponents as “extreme,”
and maybe the policy will start to look that way, too. Political strategists clearly bank on this idea. And
new political science research reveals that it works on many of us.
Researchers Thomas Nelson, Gregory Giada, and Joseph Lyons studied the strategy in a paper
published in the journal Political Psychology. To understand their findings, it’s helpful to view political
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!