ENGL 101 Pierce College The Kind of World We All Want Article Discussion In a 3-5 paragraph, academic essay argue whether or not the author successfully pr

ENGL 101 Pierce College The Kind of World We All Want Article Discussion In a 3-5 paragraph, academic essay argue whether or not the author successfully proves their thesis. Use the template provided since the essay is mainly being graded on structure. Make sure to address the prompt. The 7 page article needs to be read to do this. For each body paragraph, 2 quotes need to be used from the article. The Introductory Paragraph Worksheet
1. Write a hook that is several sentences long. It must
be related to the thesis and fully developed. Choose 1 of
the following options. Do not use more than 1 or you
risk an underdeveloped or jumpy introductory paragraph.
Cite any outside information you borrow.
Choices:
a. Vivid description
f. Definition, with
b. Background story
explanation
c. Personal anecdote
g. Historical comparison
d. Examples
h. Vivid quote, with
e. Surprising fact or
explanation
statistic, with
explanation
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
2. Write a phrase or sentence that connects (or transitions between) the
hook and the thesis.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
3. Give a thesis (1-2 sentences) with a limited topic, argument, and
explanation or evidence.
a. Limited topic: limits the subject described in the essay prompt.
b. Argument: Tells what side you are on or what claim you are
making. Often this is the answer to a question in the essay
prompt.
c. Explanation or evidence: Tells why your argument is correct.
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Essay Worksheet Packet
Part 2: Essay Structure (Research/Argumentative) 1
The Body Paragraph Worksheet
The point or argument I am making in this paragraph is: _______________
(This worksheet creates 1, 11-sentence body paragraph for a research
essay. Use as many copies as you have body paragraphs)
.
1. Topic sentence (summarizes the paragraph):
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
2. Define any terms in topic sentence that are unclear (introduce any quote
you use and cite your source if you use one). Skip this if unnecessary.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
3. Give a quote that proves your evidence is real (introduce and cite your
source). Each sentence that contains information must have its own
parenthetical. Examples:
• According to evidence, “quoting helps your argument” (Smith 45).
•
No author? Use the title. Example: According to evidence,
“quoting helps your argument” (“On Quoting” 45).
•
No page number? Skip the page number. Example: According to
evidence, “quoting helps your argument” (Smith).
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
4. Describe this evidence. Restate the quote in your own words.
_____________________________________________________________
5. Explain how this evidence proves your thesis. What kind of evidence is it?
What does it show?
• [Finish this statement: This evidence proves my argument is
correct because it shows that…]
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Essay Worksheet Packet
Part 2: Essay Structure (Research/Argumentative) 2
6. Further explain how this evidence proves your thesis. What kind of
evidence is it? What does it show?
• [Finish this statement: This evidence proves my argument is
correct because it ALSO shows that…]
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
7. Give a quote that proves your evidence is real (introduce and cite your
source). Each sentence that contains information must have its own
parenthetical.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
8. Describe this second piece of evidence. Restate the quote in your own
words.
____________________________________________________________
9. Explain how this evidence proves your thesis. What kind of evidence is it?
What does it show?
• [Finish this statement: This evidence proves my argument is
correct because it shows that…]
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
10. Further explain how this evidence proves your thesis. What kind of
evidence is it? What does it show?
• [Finish this statement: This evidence proves my argument is
correct because it ALSO shows that…]
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
11. Concluding sentence (restate the topic sentence in different words).
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Essay Worksheet Packet
Part 2: Essay Structure (Research/Argumentative) 3
The Concluding Paragraph Worksheet
1. Write a concluding hook several sentences long. It must be related to the
thesis and fully developed.
Choose 1 of the following options. Do not use more than 1 or you risk an
underdeveloped or jumpy concluding paragraph.
Choices:
a. Summary of main points
b. Give a recommendation
c. Vivid quote, with explanation
d. Future scenario
e. Question to the reader, with answer
f. Personal evaluation
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
2. Restate the thesis (1-2 sentences) with a limited topic, argument, and
explanation or evidence. Use a thesaurus to find different words than the
thesis used.
a. Limited topic: limits the subject described in the essay prompt.
b. Argument: Tells what side you are on or what claim you are
making. Often this is the answer to a question in the essay
prompt.
c. Explanation or evidence: Tells why your argument is correct.
_____________________________________________________________
Essay Worksheet Packet
Part 2: Essay Structure (Research/Argumentative) 4
The List of Works Cited
About MLA Format
On the first page of your essay:
• There is a header with your last name and page number in the upperright hand corner of the page (right corner, 1/2” from top).
• There is a heading with your name, instructor’s name, class, and date
• Give a title after the heading, centered in title case. Do not underline,
bold, italicize, or put quotes around your title. Keep the title in 12 point
font, Times New Roman.
• Use Times New Roman 12 point font
• Double space the entire essay
• Use 1″ margins (1″ on the top, bottom, left, and right)
• Indent each paragraph 5 spaces (even the first)
• The essay should be single-sided.
Essay Worksheet Packet
Part 2: Essay Structure (Research/Argumentative) 5
The Kind of World We All Want: MAYBE,
JUST MAYBE, WE CAN STOP THE
GREATEST PROPAGANDA MACHINE IN
HISTORY
by Sasha Baron Cohen
November 21, 2019
“The Kind of World We All Want: MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, WE CAN STOP THE
GREATEST PROPAGANDA MACHINE IN HISTORY.” Vital Speeches International,
vol. 12, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 2–5. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=140496605&site=ehost-live.
Database: Academic Search Complete
Video available here: https://youtu.be/ymaWq5yZIYM
Thank you, Jonathan, for your very kind words. Thank you, ADL, for this recognition
and your work in fighting racism, hate and bigotry. And to be clear, when I say “racism,
hate and bigotry” I’m not referring to the names of Stephen Miller’s Labradoodles.
Now, I realize that some of you may be thinking, what the hell is a comedian doing
speaking at a
conference like
this! I certainly
am. I’ve spent
most of the past
two decades in
character. In fact,
this is the first
time that I have
ever stood up and
given a speech as
my least popular
character, Sacha
Baron Cohen. And
I have to confess, it
is terrifying.
I realize that my
presence here may
also be unexpected
The speaker, Sasha Baron Cohen, delivers his speech at the ADL’s
2019 Never Is Now Summit on Anti-Semitism and Hate
for another reason. At times, some critics have said my comedy risks reinforcing old
stereotypes.
The truth is, I’ve been passionate about challenging bigotry and intolerance throughout
my life. As a teenager in the UK, I marched against the fascist National Front and to
abolish Apartheid. As an undergraduate, I traveled around America and wrote my
thesis about the civil rights movement,
with the help of the archives of the
ADL. And as a comedian, I’ve tried to
use my characters to get people to let
down their guard and reveal what they
actually believe, including their own
prejudice.
Watch the entire speech
here:
https://youtu.be/ymaWq5
yZIYM
Now, I’m not going to claim that
everything I’ve done has been for a
higher purpose. Yes, some of my
comedy, OK probably half my comedy, has been absolutely juvenile and the other half
completely puerile. I admit, there was nothing particularly enlightening about me—as
Borat from Kazakhstan, the first fake news journalist—running through a conference of
mortgage brokers when I was completely naked.
But when Borat was able to get
an entire bar in Arizona to sing
“Throw the Jew down the
well,” it did reveal people’s
indifference to antiSemitism. When—as Bruno,
the gay fashion reporter from
Austria—I started kissing a
man in a cage fight in
Arkansas, nearly starting a riot,
it showed the violent potential
of homophobia. And when—disguised as an ultra-woke developer—I proposed building
a mosque in one rural community, prompting a resident to proudly admit, “I am racist,
against Muslims”—it showed the acceptance of Islamophobia.
See the clip here (caution:
contains anti-Semitic language)
https://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=vKphIxuPiEE
That’s why I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you. Today around the world,
demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the
fringe are going mainstream. It’s as if the Age of Reason—the era of evidential
argument—is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimized and scientific consensus is
dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy,
which depends on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging, as are
murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.
What do all these dangerous trends have in common? I’m just a comedian and an actor,
not a scholar. But one thing is pretty clear to me. All this hate and violence is being
facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda
machine in history.
The greatest propaganda machine in history.
Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others—they reach billions
of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of
content that keeps users engaged—stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that
trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist
Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news,
because studies show that lies spread faster than truth. And it’s no surprise that the
greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the oldest conspiracy theory in
history—the lie that Jews are somehow dangerous. As one headline put it, “Just Think
What Goebbels Could Have Done with Facebook.”
On the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart resembles the
BBC. The fictitious Protocols of the Elders of Zion look as valid as an ADL report. And
the rantings of a lunatic seem as credible as the findings of a Nobel Prize winner. We
have lost, it seems, a shared sense of the basic facts upon which democracy depends.
When I, as the wanna-begansta Ali G, asked the
astronaut Buzz Aldrin “what
woz it like to walk on de
sun?” the joke worked,
because we, the audience,
shared the same facts. If you
believe the moon landing was
a hoax, the joke was not funny.
See the clip here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=AwARY7Kk8ek
When Borat got that bar in Arizona to agree that “Jews control everybody’s money and
never give it back,” the joke worked because the audience shared the fact that the
depiction of Jews as miserly is a conspiracy theory originating in the Middle Ages.
But when, thanks to social media, conspiracies take hold, it’s easier for hate groups to
recruit, easier for foreign intelligence agencies to interfere in our elections,
and easier for a country like Myanmar to commit genocide against the Rohingya.
It’s actually quite shocking how easy it is to turn conspiracy thinking into violence. In
my last show Who is America?, I found an educated, normal guy who had held down a
good job, but who, on social media, repeated many of the conspiracy theories that
President Trump, using Twitter, has spread more than 1,700 times to his 67 million
followers. The President even tweeted that he was considering designating Antifa—antifascists who march against the far right—as a terror organization.
So, disguised as an Israel anti-terrorism expert, Colonel Erran Morad, I told my
interviewee that, at the Women’s March in San Francisco, Antifa were plotting to put
hormones into babies’ diapers in order to “make them transgender.” And he believed it.
I instructed him to plant small devices on three innocent people at the march and
explained that when he pushed a button, he’d trigger an explosion that would kill them
all. They weren’t real explosives, of course, but he thought they were. I wanted to see—
would he actually do it?
The answer was yes. He pushed the button and thought he had actually killed three
human beings. Voltaire was right, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can
make you commit atrocities.” And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to
billions of people.
In their defense, these social media companies have taken some steps to reduce hate
and conspiracies on their platforms, but these steps have been mostly superficial.
I’m speaking up today because I believe that our pluralistic democracies are on a
precipice and that the next twelve months, and the role of social media, could be
determinant. British voters will go to the polls while online conspiracists promote the
despicable theory of “great replacement” that white Christians are being deliberately
replaced by Muslim immigrants. Americans will vote for president while trolls and bots
perpetuate the disgusting lie of a “Hispanic invasion.” And after years of YouTube
videos calling climate change a “hoax,” the United States is on track, a year from now, to
formally withdraw from the Paris Accords. A sewer of bigotry and vile conspiracy
theories that threatens democracy and our planet—this cannot possibly be what the
creators of the internet had in mind.
I believe it’s time for a fundamental rethink of social media and how it spreads hate,
conspiracies and lies. Last month, however, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook delivered a
major speech that, not surprisingly, warned against new laws and regulations on
companies like his. Well, some of these arguments are simply absurd. Let’s count the
ways.
First, Zuckerberg tried to portray this whole issue as “choices…around free
expression.” That is ludicrous. This is not about limiting anyone’s free speech. This is
about giving people, including some of the most reprehensible people on earth, the
biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet. Freedom of speech is not
freedom of reach. Sadly, there will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites and
child abusers. But I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and
pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.
Second, Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what’s posted on social media would be
to “pull back on free expression.” This is utter nonsense. The First Amendment says
that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not
apply to private businesses like Facebook. We’re not asking these companies to
determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be
responsible on their platforms.
If a neo-Nazi comes goose-stepping into a restaurant and starts threatening other
customers and saying he wants kill Jews, would the owner of the restaurant be required
to serve him an elegant eight-course meal? Of course not! The restaurant owner has
every legal right and a moral obligation to kick the Nazi out, and so do these internet
companies.
Third, Zuckerberg seemed to equate regulation of companies like his to the actions of
“the most repressive societies.” Incredible. This, from one of the six people who decide
what information so much of the world sees. Zuckerberg at Facebook, Sundar Pichai at
Google, at its parent company Alphabet, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Brin’s ex-sister-inlaw, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube and Jack Dorsey at Twitter.
The Silicon Six—all billionaires, all Americans—who care more about boosting their
share price than about protecting democracy. This is ideological imperialism—six
unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the rest of the world,
unaccountable to any government and acting like they’re above the reach of law. It’s like
we’re living in the Roman Empire, and Mark Zuckerberg is Caesar. At least that would
explain his haircut.
Here’s an idea. Instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of the world, let our
elected representatives, voted for by the people, of every democracy in the world, have at
least some say.
Fourth, Zuckerberg speaks of welcoming a “diversity of ideas,” and last year he gave us
an example. He said that he found posts denying the Holocaust “deeply offensive,” but
he didn’t think Facebook should take them down “because I think there are things that
different people get wrong.” At this very moment, there are still Holocaust deniers on
Facebook, and Google still takes you to the most repulsive Holocaust denial sites with a
simple click. One of the heads of Google once told me, incredibly, that these sites just
show “both sides” of the issue. This is madness.
To quote Edward R. Murrow, one “cannot accept that there are, on every story, two
equal and logical sides to an argument.” We have millions of pieces of evidence for the
Holocaust—it is an historical fact. And denying it is not some random opinion. Those
who deny the Holocaust aim to encourage another one.
Still, Zuckerberg says that “people should decide what is credible, not tech
companies.” But at a time when two-thirds of millennials say they haven’t even heard of
Auschwitz, how are they supposed to know what’s “credible?” How are they supposed to
know that the lie is a lie?
There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. And if these internet companies
really want to make a difference, they should hire enough monitors to actually monitor,
work closely with groups like the ADL, insist on facts and purge these lies and
conspiracies from their platforms.
Fifth, when discussing the difficulty of removing content, Zuckerberg asked “where do
you draw the line?” Yes, drawing the line can be difficult. But here’s what he’s really
saying: removing more of these lies and conspiracies is just too expensive.
These are the richest companies in the world, and they have the best engineers in the
world. They could fix these problems i…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment