Metaphors, Civility, and Language Debate

1. "Civility in public discourse is important" by stating this Chavez is stressing the importance of public disdain and orderly conduct. It is important to use polite terms, even if arguing with others, in a conversation so that no one is offended by any indecent comment. Different people interpret words in different ways so it is important to provide further explanation.

2. Chavez uses the word bellicose to describe metaphors and phrases used to add affect to a statement, that have had changing descriptions over the years. Chavez uses bellicose  because many political terms also relate to war terms. "When we say a candidate 'took his best shot,' we don't mean he aimed a gun at his opponent. Nor does 'firing a shot across the bow' mean anything more than issuing a strong warning." Chavez eplains the overexaggeration of these phrases and shows how they could be used offensively.

3.Chavez attempts to make the reader believe that the use of words is not the problem, but rather the context and tone used to say the word. Its not the words the speaker chooses to use, its the way they choose to use them. I think that her best example is when the Los Angeles Times did a style manual that restricted  the use of some words: "Indian," "Hispanic," "ghetto," even "inner-city." It shows how offensive words to some nationalitys are being further looked in to, in the opposite's eyes. I would have to agree with Chavez because she makes a valid point about how words are not the source of the directed offensive statement, but it is the person that says and uses the words that creates the offensive nature of the word. Racism, prejudice, and discrimination is still encountered today, but have been masked by terms that are seen as the 'norm' in the eyes of the public.