Whyde 1

Ryan Whyde

Professor Granillo

English101

26September 2018

How to Treat the Opposition Like People; Blanda’s Compelling Argument

As a kid, I would use all my powers of persuasion to beg my parents to let me stay up

Just one more hour. I would wine things like, “Mom! Just one more episode of SpongeBob;”, my

treasured extra hour was never granted. Understandably so, my use of rhetoric was in need of an

improvement. Aristotle was the first person to develop the term rhetoric, “the faculty of

observing in any given case the available means of persuasion,” (Aristotle). Although he was

aware of the significance of persuasion through emotions, he held the strong belief that logic

should be the primary means of compelling a person. Today reasoning is often seen the most

attractive form of rhetoric, at least when it comes to the world of academia. With that said, one

would not be considered hysterical to come to the conclusion that we tend to implement pathos

in our arguments. In today’s social climate, it is common to find parties dehumanizing the

opposition due to their difference in ideals; calling each other indignant, radical, or snow-flaky.

Sean Blanda, motivated by the negative discourse of much of the public, addresses this pathos

driven wall building his article, “The ‘Other Side’ Is Not Dumb,” in which he succeeds in,

developing the morals and sympathy of his audience through ethos and logos; Although he

struggles to implement logos into his article, he compels his readers to see those they disagree

with are more than an enemy.

During the time of Sean Blanda’s making of his article, 2016, we were in the midst's of a

particularly polarizing election cycle; people started taking sides and became hostile to the
 Whyde 2

opposition. Elaborating on the problem, Blanda writes, “On Twitter and Facebook … we

prioritize by sharing stuff that will garner approval of our peers over stuff that’s actually, you

know, true” (215). Well versed in the art of social media browsing, our author witnesses' others

pandering to their party to find acceptance. The idea that being welcomed is payed for through

sacrifice of one’s integrity, by which questionable sources are spread, with little to no context,

frustrate Blanda, causing him to speak out about this stagnation of conversation. Although, his

personal background also contributes to his article.

Blanda’s background has a large influence on his article, for he the company he

cofounded, Technically’s, mission statement is to “grows local technology communities by

connecting organizations and people through news, events and services,” which means that

Blanda connects with large sums of people. He has a background in interacting with people of all

walks of life, so to see the negative discord that was occurring within our country causes him to

take up arms and make a statement about the current state of affairs. More than his work life, he

specifically tells us about his social life, where he states, “There’s a FUN GAME I like to play in

a group of trusted friends called ‘controversial opinions,’” (qtd. in Blanda 212). He explains how

he and his friends express their differing opinions to better understand each other. He surrounds

himself with people of all backgrounds and beliefs. He connections drives him to make his point

in his article.

Blanda’s reasoning is started by his point that seeing those who disagree with us as crazy,

is unethical. Blanda builds up to this conclusion by connecting with the reader, giving relatable

statements such as, “‘Oh my god! I had no Idea you were one of those people,’” (qtd. in Blanda

212). The reader is to see this message and think, “Oh, that sounds a lot like that one time I …”

that’s what I thought. Doing this builds a sense of self realization that the reader is not exclusive
 Whyde 3

from the conversation of dehumanizing other sides. Connecting with his readers sets a

foundation for his tone. Blanda reflects on how some have isolated themselves from those of

opposite opinions, and how it has met its logical conclusion through social media. He writes,

“What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those insides are increasingly

convinced that everyone shares their world view …” (Blanda 213). Blanda recognizes the toxic

behavior that is spread through echo chambers, the outcome of which is confusion of an unedited

consensus, replaced by the biased reality our community has adopted. All is to say, we lose sight

of what others’ point of view are, and instead only viewing our own. To close ourselves off from

other presents challenge to morals, to which Sean Blanda condemns. Blanda doubles down in his

tone of self-realization through the use of pathos.

The author appeals to the reader’s emotions through pathos, in order to evoke a sense of

shame. He wants the reader to see the error of their ways, which is shown when he writes, “we

cannot consider ourselves ‘empathetic’ only to turn around and belittle those who don’t agree

with us” (Blanda 215). Blanda shows a distaste for those whom ridicule the opposition. In

vocalizing his disapproval, he draws on the connotation of his words, like “belittle,” in order to

show the magnitude of our actions. He uses the weight of his words to reinstate the shame he

believes these people should hold within them. He follows up the opinion of a scholar to add

another voice, presenting the answer of Dr. Fredric deBoer, writing “‘You have to be willing to

sacrifice your carefully curated social performance and be willing to work with people who are

not like you,’” (qtd. in Blanda 216). Reinforcing his own opinion, he brings the likes of deBoer

to make the point that, by staying safe socially, we are acting in cowards. Again, Blanda intends

to humiliate those who intend on staying in social circles of like minds, rather than progressing a
 Whyde 4

conversation. While Blanda’s use of ethos and pathos makes a compelling argument, he suffers

when it comes to his use of logos.

The article is not devoid of logos, his background and his use of an outside source build

his credibility to an extent, but he could have more thoroughly utilized the rhetorical tool. For

example, in writing, “Fredrik deBoer … touched on his essay ‘Getting Past the Coalition of the

Cool,’” he is bringing a credible source to back up and substantiate his claim (qtd. in Blanda

214). This has value, but if he were to add statistical sources to identify how many people are

drawn to echo chambers, or information involving the ramifications of having open

conversations about hot button issues with those of another mind, he would have made his

argument stronger. Although he lacks data driven evidence, Blanda constructs a compelling

argument capable of changing the minds of his audience.

Sean Blanda has created a piece of writing that promotes the reader to communicate with

people of differing opinions, through his use of ethos and pathos, despite his lack luster use of

logos. Rhetoric is a skill mastered after years of practice. We all start at differing levels of

persuasiveness, but the key is to practice. Blanda teaches the reader to be more open minded to

others and their opinions, but he also shows us that there is more than one way to convince

others, and he was able to do so through the ethical critique of society at large, because of this,

his audience may have a change of heart when it comes to their social standing. The goal in is to

move beyond crying for another hour of “Sponge Bob,” and develop strong rhetorical devices to

persuade our metaphorical mother to give us what we want.

 Whyde 5

Works Cited

Blanda, Sean. “The ‘Other Side’ Is Not Dumb”. They Say I Say, 4E, Gerald Graff,

Cathy Birkenstein, Russel D, Jan 7, 2016, 212 – 217.