Living by Their Own Words

Social Media Thread

This opening post sets up a rhetorical situation. The genre is social media in which the platform limits the number of characters. The author’s purpose is to inform others about a policy. It may also be to collect “likes” or reposts to spread the information, regardless of its accuracy. The audience is a collection of social media users—some known, some unknown. The author’s stance is against the denaturalization policy. The context is a POTUS/DOJ action against immigrants. The culture shows a conflict between immigrants and the current administration (and its supporters).

This response provides further information about the rhetorical situation by offering historical context, which, again, may or may not be accurate.

The original poster reiterates their stance.

This response provides an inaccurate summary of the original post. The tone shows anger and unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion or to learn more about the issue. This person’s mind is made up, so it would be hard to convince them to take a new or refined position.

This response corrects the previous responder with an accurate paraphrase of the original poster’s stance and hints at the factual nature of the original post.

This responder, although clearly against the original poster’s stance, properly asks for evidence—something that may be provided through a link to keep the character count within the confines of the genre. Based on the handle and the end of the post, this person may or may not be open to a new perspective or factual information about the issue.

This responder offers an evaluation, regardless of stance. The tone indicates a reasonable attitude. However, by stating “liberal or conservative,” this post may limit the audience since other cultures, such as moderate or progressive, may be following the thread.

This responder begins an analysis of the original post by providing a questioning tone. However, this post does not seem to further the discussion; it makes a statement and does not follow up with new information or ideas.

This responder clarifies the analytical question and tries to reengage previous responders. The question also opens up the potential for new evidence from others.

This responder offers possible evidence to support the ongoing problem of voter suppression. While unverified, it provides a strong starting point for further inquiry and discussion so that evidence can be brought into the discussion.

This responder makes a connection between the past and present—an element of analysis.

This responder makes an inference based on the accumulation of evidence. While the conclusion may be sound, it remains unclear.

This responder makes another inference based on the accumulation of evidence and alludes to previous instances of voter suppression along with potential rationale.

This responder presents a potential call to action—something people can do to fight voter suppression. This call to action assumes the audience within the given culture understands or can find out what #StayInLine means and how to become involved.