Amy Ikejiaku
Angella Appah
Kat Jusko
Iris Salswach
The Re-butt-buttal
Upon reading How Soccer Is Ruining America: A Jeremiad, one may believe Stephen Webb's statements towards the sport of soccer are ridiculous and crude. Blogger Amy Maestri wrote an attack on Stephen Webb's jeremiad. Her purpose was to refute the ridiculous claims about soccer that Webb made in his essay. Maestri adopted a very critical tone to make what she thought of the author very clear. However, Maestri failed to fully recognize the persistent satirical theme throughout the essay, which make her attacks become invalid.
We would like to admit that when we first read Webb’s essay, we did not catch on to the satirical tone used by the author to convey his point. If we had not continued to read the article- which allowed us to understand the point that Webb was making-we may have agreed with some of the arguments in Maestri’s response, as it did point out some of the flaws in his writing. However, with continued evaluation of the text, we came to the conclusion that Webb was being anything but serious. Although Maestri seemed to take notice of the possibility of a sarcastic element in the jeremiad, she never furthered the idea. Maestri seemed to skip over the telltale signs that showed that this was a satirical jeremiad.
One of the best and most efficient techniques used in satirical literature is exaggeration. Authors such as Webb use hyperboles to build up the false arguments that they’re seemingly trying to support. By doing so, the author is able to criticize the absurd arguments in his or her essay, allowing them to express the exact opposite of what they’re actually saying. Maestri actually recognized the author’s use of hyperboles: “I agree kids need to be shown there is always going to be a winner and a loser and that is how sports work, but your argument of baseball being some sort of gladiator event is one of the worst and largest exaggerations I’ve ever heard and does nothing to prove your point against soccer” (Maestri). Although she did recognize the use of hyperboles, Maestri was unsuccessful in figuring out the true intentions. Because Webb used an overstatement to mock the ridiculous claim that soccer does not build up kids before breaking them down, he invalidated the mere argument. If Maestri had not let her own emotions get the best of her, she would have been able to realize that Webb was in fact mocking this claim.
If Maestri did not realize Webb’s true intentions with his constant usage of hyperbole, Maestri could have realized Webb’s rhetorical strategy when she came to the conclusion of the essay. His sarcasm became most evident when he admitted that all three of his daughters participate in the sport that he spent an entire jeremiad criticizing. If he truly did despise soccer as it appears in the passage, it would not make sense for all three of his daughters to participate in the sport. His sarcasm became even more clear when he stated that they returned from each game “a very happy family”. Any other scenario other than the author being satirical does not make sense at this point. There is no way that a man, who was entirely serious about his hatred of soccer, could return from a soccer game in a state of euphoria. If Maestri was able to acknowledge her suspicion of satire, and realize that her suspicion was correct, she might have been able to see how his sarcasm throughout the entire essay helped to strengthen his underlying opposing arguments, as each statement that he presented was entirely too dramatic or farfetched to even seem as though it was a valid argument.
Maestri's intentions were to vilify Webb's article, however she failed to provide evidence for many of her arguments. Her incessant use of ad hominem was solely an onslaught on the author rather than his arguments. Ironically, in one example of ad hominem she said: “I hate to promote such insanity but here is the link for anyone interested in losing 10 points in your IQ by simply reading something” (Maestri). However, she was the one who lost 10 IQ points by failing to realize the author’s true intentions. The attack on the author rather than what he wrote weakened her argument considerably, as it made it seem like she did not have any real evidence of flaws in his essay. Also, because she did not realize that Webb intended to make his arguments sound ridiculous, she essentially defended the very arguments she sought to oppose. Maestri's misunderstanding of believing that Webbs essay was literal may have been justified, as at times his satire was not extremely clear. However, Maestri's misinterpretation does not justify her ad hominem; just as she claimed Webb's essay was solely full of ridiculous, crude comments, her attacks on the author instead of the work filled her response with the same type of commentary.
Angella Appah
Kat Jusko
Iris Salswach
The Re-butt-buttal
Upon reading How Soccer Is Ruining America: A Jeremiad, one may believe Stephen Webb's statements towards the sport of soccer are ridiculous and crude. Blogger Amy Maestri wrote an attack on Stephen Webb's jeremiad. Her purpose was to refute the ridiculous claims about soccer that Webb made in his essay. Maestri adopted a very critical tone to make what she thought of the author very clear. However, Maestri failed to fully recognize the persistent satirical theme throughout the essay, which make her attacks become invalid.
We would like to admit that when we first read Webb’s essay, we did not catch on to the satirical tone used by the author to convey his point. If we had not continued to read the article- which allowed us to understand the point that Webb was making-we may have agreed with some of the arguments in Maestri’s response, as it did point out some of the flaws in his writing. However, with continued evaluation of the text, we came to the conclusion that Webb was being anything but serious. Although Maestri seemed to take notice of the possibility of a sarcastic element in the jeremiad, she never furthered the idea. Maestri seemed to skip over the telltale signs that showed that this was a satirical jeremiad.
One of the best and most efficient techniques used in satirical literature is exaggeration. Authors such as Webb use hyperboles to build up the false arguments that they’re seemingly trying to support. By doing so, the author is able to criticize the absurd arguments in his or her essay, allowing them to express the exact opposite of what they’re actually saying. Maestri actually recognized the author’s use of hyperboles: “I agree kids need to be shown there is always going to be a winner and a loser and that is how sports work, but your argument of baseball being some sort of gladiator event is one of the worst and largest exaggerations I’ve ever heard and does nothing to prove your point against soccer” (Maestri). Although she did recognize the use of hyperboles, Maestri was unsuccessful in figuring out the true intentions. Because Webb used an overstatement to mock the ridiculous claim that soccer does not build up kids before breaking them down, he invalidated the mere argument. If Maestri had not let her own emotions get the best of her, she would have been able to realize that Webb was in fact mocking this claim.
If Maestri did not realize Webb’s true intentions with his constant usage of hyperbole, Maestri could have realized Webb’s rhetorical strategy when she came to the conclusion of the essay. His sarcasm became most evident when he admitted that all three of his daughters participate in the sport that he spent an entire jeremiad criticizing. If he truly did despise soccer as it appears in the passage, it would not make sense for all three of his daughters to participate in the sport. His sarcasm became even more clear when he stated that they returned from each game “a very happy family”. Any other scenario other than the author being satirical does not make sense at this point. There is no way that a man, who was entirely serious about his hatred of soccer, could return from a soccer game in a state of euphoria. If Maestri was able to acknowledge her suspicion of satire, and realize that her suspicion was correct, she might have been able to see how his sarcasm throughout the entire essay helped to strengthen his underlying opposing arguments, as each statement that he presented was entirely too dramatic or farfetched to even seem as though it was a valid argument.
Maestri's intentions were to vilify Webb's article, however she failed to provide evidence for many of her arguments. Her incessant use of ad hominem was solely an onslaught on the author rather than his arguments. Ironically, in one example of ad hominem she said: “I hate to promote such insanity but here is the link for anyone interested in losing 10 points in your IQ by simply reading something” (Maestri). However, she was the one who lost 10 IQ points by failing to realize the author’s true intentions. The attack on the author rather than what he wrote weakened her argument considerably, as it made it seem like she did not have any real evidence of flaws in his essay. Also, because she did not realize that Webb intended to make his arguments sound ridiculous, she essentially defended the very arguments she sought to oppose. Maestri's misunderstanding of believing that Webbs essay was literal may have been justified, as at times his satire was not extremely clear. However, Maestri's misinterpretation does not justify her ad hominem; just as she claimed Webb's essay was solely full of ridiculous, crude comments, her attacks on the author instead of the work filled her response with the same type of commentary.