“The Other Side is Not Dumb”Short Response Paper

“The Other Side is Not Dumb”Short Response Paper

Sean Blanda’s article ‘The Other Side Is Not Dumb’ gives a well elaborate approach to how people think and the need to have freedom of expression. The main aim of his writing is to provide an honest opinion that all people should be entitled to their views and opinions. People think that others should also think likewise, which is not accurate and practical. To support his claim, Blanda has used an example of how people interact through the internet and different social media platforms. Blanda has referenced sources in which the user clicks a hyperlink, which does not direct you to the desired location on the website instead of another irrelevant site. In all this research, the author intends to establish that every reader needs an open mind in their interactions with other people.

Blanda has established the author’s authority through the use of ethos within the third paragraph in handling the aspect of ‘psychology.’ In this section, he addresses the false consciousness that people have regarding others, as in this quote, “Psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the false consensus basis”(Blanda). The narrative is that people should not try to be who they are not. In expounding his term ‘psychology,’ Blanda gives the reader an understanding of the skills applied in this approach of reasoning though the authenticity cannot be identified in this explanation.

Based on Blanda’s observation in this article, he persuades the reader to apply his suggestion as a solution when in interacting with another person who holds a different view. His opinion on this article shows how to keep calm and avoid disagreement in the discussion. One of his suggestions is that when a person quotes a particular ‘fact’ and, in essence, it does not support your viewpoint, do not be quick to consider it to be true. Instead, give yourself the benefit of the doubt and assume maybe that person might be right and consider researching or thinking about it in depth. This approach of handling arguments is also educative and can help the audience learn how to handle disagreements.

In his article, Blanda has also addressed the impact of peer pressure, where opinions from his peers can majorly influence one person. The peer opinions found on social media have some information that is not true. Online games and other social aspects blind most young people through the media. The involvement on the internet has made people believe in the web more than they can depend on their free will and ability to think. Blanda tries to suggest a more sober way of handling discussion and use of social media where people are at liberty to believe and not influenced by other peers. In his research, it’s evident that most people are blinded by what their friends say or do during online discussion. Blanda’s suggestion to the audience is that each person needs an independent mind in all disputes.

In his discretion, Blanda urges the reader to use logic and reason in making the proper judgment. He supports his claims by mentioning Washington post in which the public has become unaware of the falsehood contained in such articles. Many blogs and newspapers are major concerns where people read these documents and believe in their reports as accurate. A lot is in this post where an average person may not unravel the lies behind it. In this analysis, the author shows a graphic representation with biased poll information from news agencies within the entire nation. This news indicates different percentages of readers who often become annoyed with an article in the worldwide news as compared to the rate at which it occurs. The author aims to authenticate his opinions that such a report may represent just a fraction of the entire population, and hence the analyses may not be well interpreted.

In conclusion, Blanda explains how people are supposed to use their reason and be open-minded in any approach of their life. No one should be influenced by the opinions of others to make a decision. This article has strong arguments that make the reader consider his or her reasoning capabilities. The report challenges the assumptions done by the public, even when dealing with the national news agency. The article has applied good use of ethos while referring to other authors, which makes it more credible.