Can someone go through this and help me improve it (ps. what score would i get)
Thank you in advance **Disclaimer- it's an really long essay**
Callous & Sticks and stones
Following the Christchurch massacre and the varied responses in relation to the normalisation of the anti-Muslim rhetoric and a discussion on where the blame lies, in the lead up to the federal election. Miranda Devine’s opinion piece, “Callous Christchurch opportunism is reprehensible” ( 19th march 2019), contends that “ the left” are disrespecting those who were killed in this attack, thereby indecently using this “incident” to push their agenda in order to gain “political points” against the conservatives. She also condemns the hypocritical nature of “the left[sit’s]” argument that, conservatives are the ones to ultimately to blame for this “incident’. Devine a known conservative is prevalent throughout the article. Contrastingly in Catchy Wilcox’s political cartoon “sticks and stones” the conservatives are depicted as predominantly to blame for the attack that occurred, to get the voters to reconsider their votes this federal election. She also condemns the normalization of Anti-Islamic rhetoric, as she suggests that has led to these “incidents”. Wilcox’s known support of the left is presented with the fewer “words” said by the left in, comparison to the right. The purpose of both pieces is to encourage the, voters with either centrist views as well as those with, right or left leaning voters.
Devine Strongly condemns “the left[s’]” response in relation to the attack. She suggests that they are “jihad apologists” who sought to “downplay” the emotional implication and impact. By placing inverted commas on “incidents” refers to, “the left” who have downplayed and not called it for what it is. This follows her comments “terror” and “terrorism”, she used these words to initially attack the left by emphasising the “terror”, she provokes the audience to imagine the terrible scenes. Of people being terrified of getting hurt and of “death’ in order to stir up emotions within the reader, so they realise the seriousness of this issue that left has used, for self satisfying reasons. In order to strengthen her attack on the leftist to suggest that supporting these “anti -Muslim” attacks, by downgrading this “incident “to advance the leftists’ agenda to gain political points. Hence causing the division and playing into the “terrorists” hand. By listing the past “terror” “attack”in Australia. She intends to appeal to the fear of the Australian public, by contending that “Isis- inspired” people are currently present in Australia, therefore insinuates these attacks could happened here and the left wing is accepting, these attacks. Unlike the conservatives, who are denouncing these attacks. Contrastingly, Wilcox indicates that in fact these “Anti- Islamic” ideas presented by some current politicians in Australia, have led to this attack. By predominantly placing statements from the conservatives, implying that they are largely to blame and the use “et al” is to suggests that many other have said this and therefore, it’s a common notion among current politicians. The dramatic separation of “to kill me” differs, from the original poem. That dramatic step down of each “word” is used to make the reader to pause to really think about these “words”. This is used to imply that all these sentiments, led to the “Christchurch” “massacre”, is designed to evoke the reader to think about who they are voting for. As these “words” said by these politicians have led to innocent people being “kill[ed]”.
By placing an innocent little girl skipping with an confused facial expression, to present the point that vulnerable and innocent children with no say (voice) are affected too. The phase “ to kill me…” with the ellipses leading to “the final solution”, is designed to provoke the readers, to imagine innocent children being “kill[ed] “ at the “Christchurch” attack. Therefore by applying to the voters sense of morality and hence creating an emotional dilemma, to evoke feelings of concern and fear of these outcomes, therefore sways the readers into supporting her stance regarding this issue.
Devine strongly condemns the “hypocrisy” of the lefts’ arguments, that the conservatives are to blame for this attack. By criticising the left for their lack of respect. She states that “the bodies were barely cold” to prompt the reader to visualize the “terror” attack victims “bodies” lying on the floor and that There was not enough time for morning nor processing the incident. Instead “the left” used this, to merely “score political points” and blame the oppositions‘ (Conservatives). She argues that they have deliberately chosen to avoid the seriousness, of the real issue, which is “Islamic extremism”. The artwork by Terry Pontikos, the visual shows two identically distorted men pointing, yelling at each other, wearing green “far” T-shirts and ear lobe spacers. The ‘mirror image” represents the “fascist ideology” of the left and by drawing these comparisons to “bigots like...Anning” whom, she associates them with “white supremacy” in order to create anger and frustrations among the readers, to encourage them to condemning their “fascist ideology” and hence by disgusting herself form extreme conservatives, she presents her as reasonable and therefore the reader tends to accept her stance. Pontikos hence creates an echo chamber with is surrounded, by people with similar views. To suggest that all those on the left this alike and there are not reasonable nor open and therefore only care about the “points”. Which is far more important than denouncing the “extremism” that is present in Australia, hence she implies that “the left” do not care for the safety of Australia also, that “the left” should be looking into their own party before blatantly blaming the right wing, as the fault is their own. In order to get the Australia voters to vote for her party by implying there are more serious and considerat, then “the left”.
Devin rejects the “academic” Nick Reimer by labeling him as “intellectually dishonourable” to lessen his credibility and hence his argument. By using the word “smeared” to describe his piece on “western civilisation”, she indicates that Reimer used this incident to “ramp up” the “curriculum” that “validates” therefore supports this attack. Having highlighted that “Richard Di Natale” has “used this tragedy” for “political points” to evoke anger and frustration with the reader in terms of the “us[ing]” this even to push their own agenda. By placing quotation marks on “your hateful rhetoric…account” she implies that it was the “consequence” of their actions led to “Christchurch”, hence by appealing to the reader emotion by suggesting that “ the left” care about tallying up their points that caring for the victims. The image of Waleed Aly form the “Boston… bombing” and by using inverted commas to describe “terrorism” as “perpetual irritant” that “kills...few people” this by adding quotations to suggest that things will continue to happened because of “the left”.Having used words such as “scream”, “loudest” and “bigotry” with negative connotations in order to suggest that there is no credibility to their arguments as there is, no intentional reason or meaning. Having “criticis[ed] those that believe in “identity politics” by stating that they don’t respect the “victims”. By labeling their statements as “ dehumanising sentiments” as they lack “sympathy” for the “victims”. Devine concludes by highlights that “ they are… evil coin”, implies that no matter what way you look at “the left” wing are “evil” and that they need to be the one held accountable for this “incident”. Yet Wilcox portrays the conservatives as the ones who largely partook in normalisation of anti Muslim rhetoric and therefore are to blame for “Christchurch”. Therefore Wilcox encourages the readers to vote for the left wing politicians as they largely don’t share the views of these conservatives.
Therefore, Devine argues that the conservatives are not the ones to blame for this “incident” as the left “claims” but denouncing the leftist ideas as they lack respect and “sympathy” for the victims and are just users, while Wilcox advocates that the conservatives are predominantly to blame for this incident as it’s a direct consequence for this “words”.