The top cartoon is an appeal to pathos. It creates the sense that those occupying Wall Street are merely a group of individuals incapable of doing anything worthwhile with their lives, living as leeches off of everyone around them. The occupiers are portrayed as uneducated or at least stupid, their limited vocabulary being shown in the sign 'Like,We Are The 99%'. In the background is an older couple, surprised to find their son in the basement, playing videogames. There is no appeal to logos that I can see, and the only appeal to ethos that I could come up with is that the artist knew what Occupy Wall Street is, but even then, that doesn't say much for the individual.
The second cartoon is purely pathos. There is no logos, but like the first cartoon, it has some ethos in that the artist comes out of his or her solitary fortress often enough to know what Occupy Wall Street is. The cartoon relies solely on pathos, portraying a couple of fat cats spitting on the angry crowds below as they demand their share of the money, reminiscent of Marie Antoinette when she told the starving crowds in Paris to go and eat cake. The two bankers are showing a complete disrespect for the common folk down below and the purpose of this cartoon is to incite fury.
Both cartoons follow the same methods of appealing to their audiences. However, their audiences couldn't be farther apart. The top cartoon is for those who oppose the Occupy Wall Street movement, while the one below it is for those who support the Occupy Wall Street movement. You can tell because in the top, the antagonist is the youthful bum from Occupy Wall Street living in his parents basement. In the other one, the antagonists are the two main characters, who are spitting onto the crowds. Both are to create intense feelings of outrage, and both achieve their intended purpose.
"Ha", thats all I have to say for the Occupy Basement cartoon. My parents would just throw me out of the house. It doesn't appeal to ethos or logos basically at all. It is showing that the young man, I mean boy, is not a very sophisticated being, being that he has to live off of someone else all the time.
The Trickle Down cartoon doesn't appeal to ethos or logos though. It appeals to pathos being that the governers or senators, whatever they are, don't show any emotions to the citizens occupying wall street.
I am not very educated on the Occupy Wall Street or the Trickle Down effect, so I honestly could not say whether they appeal to the same audience or not. i do have to say though that the top cartoon is talking to the wealthier of us and the bottom cartoon is talking to the less fortunate of us. I think that it was just two different artists with fairly different views on the economy.
The first comic simply portrays a young adult who got kicked out of an "occupy" movement. The pathos comes in with his demeanor, it's very apathetic... He doesn't really seem too peeved about having to mooch off his parents in their basement relaxing all day instead of getting a job for a house. What helps too is his sign that says "like, we are the 99%" he, like a lot of young adults, probably have no clue what they are REALLY protesting they just want to be a part of it, and if they get kicked out, it doesn't affect them. The adults who actually are affected by the bankers and CEO's are being undermined by these adults who are not informed, and I would assume that they are irate about how they are being looked at.
The second cartoon focuses on the perspective of the rich, elite 1% and how they don't care at all about how our system is turning out. In this cartoon they are spitting on what represents millions of people without homes or people who just want to see democracy out of the hands of CEO's, who fund our government officials, making hundreds of thousands before lunch. Of course, they don't see any of this from their mansion or Italian sports car windows.
These are both cartoons that appeal mainly to people's emotions, one makes you feel like the Occupy movement is meaningless and left to a bunch of jobless, apathetic young adults. The other one however makes you feel ashamed to be American and under the rule of rich corporate bankers. They show their appeals in a very straight forward manner but it works well to make a reader pay attetion.
The first cartoon is mainly an appeal to pathos. The occupy Wall Street movement has swept the nation. Many people who have taken part are being forced to move in or back in with someone due to the loss of their homes and the cities waning tolerance of the "squatters". On the other side those who have a little more stability are finding themselves playing the role of host for those who are in need of shelter. The language on the sign, the unnecessary "like" on the son's sign suggests that the next generation is stepping up to take the mantle of the 99%. Trickle Down was a theory that was supposed to help stimulate the economy be giving tax breaks to big corporations and wealthy Americans. The theory was that they would spend their excess money and stimulate the economy and that that money would eventually reach the working class. After years of giving this economic plan a run it is clear that it does not work. Big corporations however do not want this to change because it means more money for them. appeal to pathos is extremely prominent in this cartoon due to the disgusting and disrespectful act of the 1% spitting on the poor. These ctoons are appealing to the same audience, which is the 99%. Both are referring to well known events that are currently ongoing.
I think the first cartoon is about the Occupy Wall Street. And the whole 99% to 1%. Its the fact that young adults are going out and protesting saying they aren the 99% of the world. I think this appeals to pathos because of the fact that again that the one pertcent of has control of the government and is taking people from where they were. Forcing them to move back with their parents. This also appeals to ethos because of the fact that people are aware of the 99% plan. And that they are taking a stand for what they believe in. Even though the government is telling them to move. The second cartoon appeals to pathos too. For the fact that the people higher up are laughing at them. Laughing at them because they want to have a fair share, not having the government be controlled. This also appeals to ethos like the other one. Because the higher up probably being the government is spitting at the Wall Street people. As I said they want a fair share but you have the government spitting on them and then the police slowly pushing them away. Neither of the cartoons really appeal to logos. These cartoons have are the same yet different. They actually appeal the same thing. One leads into another. With the Occupy Wall Street getting spit on and then slowly being forced out by the police. Causing them to move in with their parents. That's how I see it anyway. They in a way do appeal to the same audience becuase of the 1% 99% thing.
The first cartoon is a satire of the entire Occupy movement and all who participate in it. The cartoonist is trying to say that Occupiers really are unaware of what their cause is, and that the protesters are too lazy and oblivious to fight for their cause in the first place. For an Occupier, this would be an insulting appeal to pathos. Nobody wants to be told that they are stupid and lazy, especially those who are riled up about something in the first place. For some others, the cartoon may appeal to ethos, because many do not know exactly what Occupiers are fighting for, and can relate to that message that the cartoonist sends out.
The second cartoon also sends out a negative message to those involved in the Occupy movement. The "trickle down" that the politicians refer to is the small amount of money that the 99% gets, after big business owners and political bosses take their portion off the top. The appeal to pathos is in the other politician's action of spitting on the Occupy crowd. Such a degrading action would incite emotion in anybody involved with the movement. The only other appeal I could see would be in the mention of "trickle down," and the author's knowledge of what the Occupiers want from the politicians. Appeals other than pathos could be masked by the appeal to pathos itself, through the politician's disrespectful words and actions.
Both cartoons have an appeal to the "1%", and a negative appeal to those involved in Occupy Wall Street. People on the top of society might relate to and agree with the cartoons, but both are intended to gibe and anger Occupiers.
The first cartoon appeals greatly to pathos in the sense that it depicts all of the occupy wall street people as people that can only take things from others instead of being able to do anything themselves. Everyone hates it when you are looked down upon, and that is more of what the 99% are they hate to be looked down on by the 1% because money equals power. Logos and Ethos are not highly appealed within this cartoon. As in the first cartoon pathos is highly appealed because just as i was saying the 99% is being looked down on by the 1% not only because of the power they have but just to antagonise the protesters further. Ethos is applied by the mentioning of the "Trickle Down Theory" in which the other economic benefits provided by government to the businesses and the wealthy would benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy all together. as you can see the wealthy are just spitting in there faces instead of giving the benefits that would help everyone. What both cartoons have in common is that they highly appeal to pathos because they are depicting the harsh reality of the wealthy 1% of America. This goes to show that it might take more than just protesting to get the wealthy 1% to concede to any notion of helping out the rest of America.
Whenever I see these cartoons I can't help but think of the GCU trip. My mind recalls that swift moment in the van when I glanced out the window and absorbed the sight before my eyes. I took in the sight of hundreds of tents scattered about the grass in the U of A district. I remember watching as people began to barbeque hot dogs, and eat and laugh. I remember thinking, "they're not doing anything whatsoever!" When I saw the first cartoon, I couldn't help but sigh in agreement with the artist. The artist appeals to ethos and pathos so much in this cartoon! They depict a lazy youth lounging on the couch in the basement of his parent’s home. The youth has been kicked out of the park he was protesting in and has now come back to his parent’s basement with nothing to show for all his efforts. He has gone back to doing essentially, nothing. The artist appeals to pathos in the sense that people can feel pity and maybe even anger. It's almost as if the artist is saying that Occupy Wall Street movement is hopeless, if not pointless because apparently it's not working-- and I think the second cartoon really only emphasizes that point. Lastly, I think that the artist appeals to ethos because they portray an image that most adults and teens recognize. They portray a young man living in his parent’s basement, most people can relate to the artist better that way. They can better trust that the artist also feels the general public feels toward people that are stuck in the young man's position.
The second cartoon portrays two political figures on top of balcony utterly ridiculing the protesters below them with jokes about trickle. If you look to the bottom left at the protesters, you realize that the police force has gotten involved with "maintaining the peace.” These people are not accomplishing their goal. Most of the people involved don’t even know why they are protesting! I also have heard that this protest is not as innocent as it would appear. I heard that a lot of violence and brutality have occurred due to these people. The political figures appear to be taking perverse pleasure in watching these ignorant people fail at their vague goal. The cartoon seems to appeal to pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos is large here because it invokes a sense of anger at both parties for their faults. Ethos, in the sense that it would appear to reach people that see problem with both the political figures that seem to do nothing and the protesters making things worse. And lastly, logos: most of these facts have been on radio shows and several news stations that most people are familiar with, and have most likely seen. This gives a sense of security. Lastly I think that the two cartoons reach similar audiences. In my own opinion, it seems like both cartoons, while maybe appearing to be stark opposites, send the same message: this isn’t working.
Alright, both are with the occupation of wall street, so yes they both apply to the same group of people with the same cause, but the difference in both are who they are pointing out to.
The top one asumes that the people at wallstreet are just low life teenagers just trying to sponge off the economic situation as best they can, and when they can not do that they go back to their parents house and stay there.
The next one shows the leaders of wall street, having spat on the crowd below trying to get more of the wealth to the other "99%" of the people, impling that their spit is what they will get and they really dont care what you think in the first place, making you belive your opinion is invalid.
Both show that from young to older, something needs to be done, the stocks need to go from 20% taxed, back to the older 25% taxed.
The Occupy Basement cartoon is essentially saying that the many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are just teenagers or young adults who don’t truly grasp the meaning of the protest. These people want to be a part of the protest, but don’t really care what becomes of it. His disregard for the protest can be seen in the fact that he isn’t upset to have to be back in his parents’ basement and his sign that reads “Like, we are the 99%” shows he doesn’t really know or care about the actual reason for the protest.
The Trickle Down cartoon is showing that the people of Wall Street don’t really care about the reasons behind why people are protesting. They are spitting on the protesters, taunting them with the fact that this kind of “trickle down” is the only kind they are likely to see. These people of Wall Street don’t care about the people they affect with their elitist ways. They are perfectly content to be on the top and laugh at those in a worse situation.
The first cartoon applies ethos in the fact that the cartoonist’s view of the Occupy Wall Street protest is evident. The cartoonist sees the protest as a bunch of immature young adults who don’t really know what they are fighting for. The cartoonist would gain credibility with any audience who also views the Occupy Wall Street protest in the same way. The only appeal to logos comes in the form of the cartoonist knowing about the Occupy Wall Street protest in general, but other than that there are no concrete facts. The cartoon appeal to pathos mainly as the boy is just mooching off of his family and nobody likes a person who leeches off of others. This human leech is meant to anger the audience and get them to connect to the issue.
The second cartoon again appeals to ethos in the form that the cartoonist’s take on the Occupy Wall Street protest is easy to figure out. The cartoonist shows the people of Wall Street in a bad light with them spitting and heckling the protesters. The cartoonist seems to agree with the protesters or at least is against the people of Wall Street. The cartoonist gains credibility with an audience that shares this view. Logos can be seen with the cartoonist’s knowledge of the Occupy Wall Street protest and their knowledge of the concept of “trickle down”, but this is the extent of any appeals to logos. This cartoon, as well as the first, appeals to pathos mostly. However, this cartoon wants people to feel anger not towards the protesters but the people of Wall Street. The Wall Street people are laughing and making fun of protesters who have been hurt mainly due to practices on Wall Street. The cartoonist sees that and wants the audience to be angered by that too.
In both pictures they appeal to pathos, logos, and some ethos. Pathos because they're talking about Wall Street and how the protests aren't going very well at all. Logos because it shows what's happened/happening to those that are protesting. Ethos because it is a touchy subject right now and people tend not to talk about it. These cartoons are not for the same audience by any means, the top one is for those that are against the protesters, and the bottom one, I believe is to show what the companies are doing to us, to get more protesters.
Occupy Basement mostly appeals to ethos. It seems as if that author believes that the protestors are lazy and do not really care about protesting. They are doing nothing useful in their parent's house, just like they are doing nothing useful by occupying Wall Street. Anyone who also sees the protesters in this way would agree with the author, appealing to ethos. The appeal to pathos can make you angry at the stupidity the teenager seems to show, or it seems comical at the irony of it all. I did not see an appeal to logos much, except for the fact that the author knows about Occupy Wall Street and the 99% to 1%.
The Trickle Down cartoon appeals greatly to pathos. You feel bad for the 99% or people who are trying to get what they want. You might feel angry at the other 1% who don't seem to want to give more than their own spit. Ethos is shown for the 99% of people who agree that trickle down is giving us hardly anything.
The two cartoons are similar because they both show the "Occupy" people as being at the bottom of the totem pole. The audience for the first cartoon could be the teenagers who are occupying wall street, so they can see what they appear to be doing. The audience for the second cartoon could be the 1% of the population, so they can see how they are being perceived by 99% of the people. Therefore, the audiences are different.
The first cartoon uses pathos. It gives the impression that the people who are part of the Occupy Wall Street protest are unproductive, lazy people by showing the teenager playing video games and living in his parents basement.
The second cartoon also uses pathos. It portrays wealthy people as disrespectful and cruel towards everyone else by showing them spitting on the crowds of protesters below.
The cartoons do not appeal to the same audiences. The first cartoon appeals to those who are against the Occupy Wall Street protest while the second cartoon appeals to those who are for the Occupy Wall Street protest.
Never will I forget the day that half of my freshman class walked out on their teachers during an exhilarating lesson on exponents to join a nearby protest outside the school fences. "It's freedom of speech" they mumbled, fists in the air. "America is a free country", another genius piped in. Two years later, and I guarantee you not a single student recalls why they walked out that day anyway. Another genius, this time in the portrayed cartoon has come home after a tedious day of hard work. Lounging on the couch of his parent's basement, the boy nonchalantly states the fact that he has been kicked out of his neighborhood park for protesting. Regardless, the lazy bum doesn't have a clue about what he's protesting about- his sign is hardly what you would call an attempt. This cartoon appeals to pathos. Truly makes you feel that many people are incompetent and don't know what they are doing.
The second cartoon appeals to pathos as well I believe. The two gentlemen- spraying it, not saying it- are part of the elite 1% richest in America. They don't care about why the rest of us are protesting. Our opinions don't matter and never will. The appeal to pathos is easy to find, because you can truly understand why the remaining 99% of us are frustrated. We have no voice in this government.
The top cartoon is an appeal to pathos. It creates the sense that those occupying Wall Street are merely a group of individuals incapable of doing anything worthwhile with their lives, living as leeches off of everyone around them. The occupiers are portrayed as uneducated or at least stupid, their limited vocabulary being shown in the sign 'Like,We Are The 99%'. In the background is an older couple, surprised to find their son in the basement, playing videogames.
ReplyDeleteThere is no appeal to logos that I can see, and the only appeal to ethos that I could come up with is that the artist knew what Occupy Wall Street is, but even then, that doesn't say much for the individual.
The second cartoon is purely pathos. There is no logos, but like the first cartoon, it has some ethos in that the artist comes out of his or her solitary fortress often enough to know what Occupy Wall Street is. The cartoon relies solely on pathos, portraying a couple of fat cats spitting on the angry crowds below as they demand their share of the money, reminiscent of Marie Antoinette when she told the starving crowds in Paris to go and eat cake. The two bankers are showing a complete disrespect for the common folk down below and the purpose of this cartoon is to incite fury.
Both cartoons follow the same methods of appealing to their audiences. However, their audiences couldn't be farther apart. The top cartoon is for those who oppose the Occupy Wall Street movement, while the one below it is for those who support the Occupy Wall Street movement. You can tell because in the top, the antagonist is the youthful bum from Occupy Wall Street living in his parents basement. In the other one, the antagonists are the two main characters, who are spitting onto the crowds. Both are to create intense feelings of outrage, and both achieve their intended purpose.
"Ha", thats all I have to say for the Occupy Basement cartoon. My parents would just throw me out of the house. It doesn't appeal to ethos or logos basically at all. It is showing that the young man, I mean boy, is not a very sophisticated being, being that he has to live off of someone else all the time.
ReplyDeleteThe Trickle Down cartoon doesn't appeal to ethos or logos though. It appeals to pathos being that the governers or senators, whatever they are, don't show any emotions to the citizens occupying wall street.
I am not very educated on the Occupy Wall Street or the Trickle Down effect, so I honestly could not say whether they appeal to the same audience or not. i do have to say though that the top cartoon is talking to the wealthier of us and the bottom cartoon is talking to the less fortunate of us. I think that it was just two different artists with fairly different views on the economy.
The first comic simply portrays a young adult who got kicked out of an "occupy" movement. The pathos comes in with his demeanor, it's very apathetic... He doesn't really seem too peeved about having to mooch off his parents in their basement relaxing all day instead of getting a job for a house. What helps too is his sign that says "like, we are the 99%" he, like a lot of young adults, probably have no clue what they are REALLY protesting they just want to be a part of it, and if they get kicked out, it doesn't affect them. The adults who actually are affected by the bankers and CEO's are being undermined by these adults who are not informed, and I would assume that they are irate about how they are being looked at.
ReplyDeleteThe second cartoon focuses on the perspective of the rich, elite 1% and how they don't care at all about how our system is turning out. In this cartoon they are spitting on what represents millions of people without homes or people who just want to see democracy out of the hands of CEO's, who fund our government officials, making hundreds of thousands before lunch. Of course, they don't see any of this from their mansion or Italian sports car windows.
These are both cartoons that appeal mainly to people's emotions, one makes you feel like the Occupy movement is meaningless and left to a bunch of jobless, apathetic young adults. The other one however makes you feel ashamed to be American and under the rule of rich corporate bankers. They show their appeals in a very straight forward manner but it works well to make a reader pay attetion.
The first cartoon is mainly an appeal to pathos. The occupy Wall Street movement has swept the nation. Many people who have taken part are being forced to move in or back in with someone due to the loss of their homes and the cities waning tolerance of the "squatters". On the other side those who have a little more stability are finding themselves playing the role of host for those who are in need of shelter. The language on the sign, the unnecessary "like" on the son's sign suggests that the next generation is stepping up to take the mantle of the 99%.
ReplyDeleteTrickle Down was a theory that was supposed to help stimulate the economy be giving tax breaks to big corporations and wealthy Americans. The theory was that they would spend their excess money and stimulate the economy and that that money would eventually reach the working class. After years of giving this economic plan a run it is clear that it does not work. Big corporations however do not want this to change because it means more money for them. appeal to pathos is extremely prominent in this cartoon due to the disgusting and disrespectful act of the 1% spitting on the poor.
These ctoons are appealing to the same audience, which is the 99%. Both are referring to well known events that are currently ongoing.
I think the first cartoon is about the Occupy Wall Street. And the whole 99% to 1%. Its the fact that young adults are going out and protesting saying they aren the 99% of the world. I think this appeals to pathos because of the fact that again that the one pertcent of has control of the government and is taking people from where they were. Forcing them to move back with their parents. This also appeals to ethos because of the fact that people are aware of the 99% plan. And that they are taking a stand for what they believe in. Even though the government is telling them to move.
ReplyDeleteThe second cartoon appeals to pathos too. For the fact that the people higher up are laughing at them. Laughing at them because they want to have a fair share, not having the government be controlled. This also appeals to ethos like the other one. Because the higher up probably being the government is spitting at the Wall Street people. As I said they want a fair share but you have the government spitting on them and then the police slowly pushing them away. Neither of the cartoons really appeal to logos.
These cartoons have are the same yet different. They actually appeal the same thing. One leads into another. With the Occupy Wall Street getting spit on and then slowly being forced out by the police. Causing them to move in with their parents. That's how I see it anyway. They in a way do appeal to the same audience becuase of the 1% 99% thing.
The first cartoon is a satire of the entire Occupy movement and all who participate in it. The cartoonist is trying to say that Occupiers really are unaware of what their cause is, and that the protesters are too lazy and oblivious to fight for their cause in the first place. For an Occupier, this would be an insulting appeal to pathos. Nobody wants to be told that they are stupid and lazy, especially those who are riled up about something in the first place. For some others, the cartoon may appeal to ethos, because many do not know exactly what Occupiers are fighting for, and can relate to that message that the cartoonist sends out.
ReplyDeleteThe second cartoon also sends out a negative message to those involved in the Occupy movement. The "trickle down" that the politicians refer to is the small amount of money that the 99% gets, after big business owners and political bosses take their portion off the top. The appeal to pathos is in the other politician's action of spitting on the Occupy crowd. Such a degrading action would incite emotion in anybody involved with the movement. The only other appeal I could see would be in the mention of "trickle down," and the author's knowledge of what the Occupiers want from the politicians. Appeals other than pathos could be masked by the appeal to pathos itself, through the politician's disrespectful words and actions.
Both cartoons have an appeal to the "1%", and a negative appeal to those involved in Occupy Wall Street. People on the top of society might relate to and agree with the cartoons, but both are intended to gibe and anger Occupiers.
The first cartoon appeals greatly to pathos in the sense that it depicts all of the occupy wall street people as people that can only take things from others instead of being able to do anything themselves. Everyone hates it when you are looked down upon, and that is more of what the 99% are they hate to be looked down on by the 1% because money equals power. Logos and Ethos are not highly appealed within this cartoon.
ReplyDeleteAs in the first cartoon pathos is highly appealed because just as i was saying the 99% is being looked down on by the 1% not only because of the power they have but just to antagonise the protesters further. Ethos is applied by the mentioning of the "Trickle Down Theory" in which the other economic benefits provided by government to the businesses and the wealthy would benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy all together. as you can see the wealthy are just spitting in there faces instead of giving the benefits that would help everyone.
What both cartoons have in common is that they highly appeal to pathos because they are depicting the harsh reality of the wealthy 1% of America. This goes to show that it might take more than just protesting to get the wealthy 1% to concede to any notion of helping out the rest of America.
Whenever I see these cartoons I can't help but think of the GCU trip. My mind recalls that swift moment in the van when I glanced out the window and absorbed the sight before my eyes. I took in the sight of hundreds of tents scattered about the grass in the U of A district. I remember watching as people began to barbeque hot dogs, and eat and laugh. I remember thinking, "they're not doing anything whatsoever!" When I saw the first cartoon, I couldn't help but sigh in agreement with the artist. The artist appeals to ethos and pathos so much in this cartoon! They depict a lazy youth lounging on the couch in the basement of his parent’s home. The youth has been kicked out of the park he was protesting in and has now come back to his parent’s basement with nothing to show for all his efforts. He has gone back to doing essentially, nothing. The artist appeals to pathos in the sense that people can feel pity and maybe even anger. It's almost as if the artist is saying that Occupy Wall Street movement is hopeless, if not pointless because apparently it's not working-- and I think the second cartoon really only emphasizes that point. Lastly, I think that the artist appeals to ethos because they portray an image that most adults and teens recognize. They portray a young man living in his parent’s basement, most people can relate to the artist better that way. They can better trust that the artist also feels the general public feels toward people that are stuck in the young man's position.
ReplyDeleteThe second cartoon portrays two political figures on top of balcony utterly ridiculing the protesters below them with jokes about trickle. If you look to the bottom left at the protesters, you realize that the police force has gotten involved with "maintaining the peace.” These people are not accomplishing their goal. Most of the people involved don’t even know why they are protesting! I also have heard that this protest is not as innocent as it would appear. I heard that a lot of violence and brutality have occurred due to these people. The political figures appear to be taking perverse pleasure in watching these ignorant people fail at their vague goal. The cartoon seems to appeal to pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos is large here because it invokes a sense of anger at both parties for their faults. Ethos, in the sense that it would appear to reach people that see problem with both the political figures that seem to do nothing and the protesters making things worse. And lastly, logos: most of these facts have been on radio shows and several news stations that most people are familiar with, and have most likely seen. This gives a sense of security. Lastly I think that the two cartoons reach similar audiences. In my own opinion, it seems like both cartoons, while maybe appearing to be stark opposites, send the same message: this isn’t working.
Keifer coggin. 11/30/11
ReplyDeleteAlright, both are with the occupation of wall street, so yes they both apply to the same group of people with the same cause, but the difference in both are who they are pointing out to.
The top one asumes that the people at wallstreet are just low life teenagers just trying to sponge off the economic situation as best they can, and when they can not do that they go back to their parents house and stay there.
The next one shows the leaders of wall street, having spat on the crowd below trying to get more of the wealth to the other "99%" of the people, impling that their spit is what they will get and they really dont care what you think in the first place, making you belive your opinion is invalid.
Both show that from young to older, something needs to be done, the stocks need to go from 20% taxed, back to the older 25% taxed.
The Occupy Basement cartoon is essentially saying that the many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are just teenagers or young adults who don’t truly grasp the meaning of the protest. These people want to be a part of the protest, but don’t really care what becomes of it. His disregard for the protest can be seen in the fact that he isn’t upset to have to be back in his parents’ basement and his sign that reads “Like, we are the 99%” shows he doesn’t really know or care about the actual reason for the protest.
ReplyDeleteThe Trickle Down cartoon is showing that the people of Wall Street don’t really care about the reasons behind why people are protesting. They are spitting on the protesters, taunting them with the fact that this kind of “trickle down” is the only kind they are likely to see. These people of Wall Street don’t care about the people they affect with their elitist ways. They are perfectly content to be on the top and laugh at those in a worse situation.
The first cartoon applies ethos in the fact that the cartoonist’s view of the Occupy Wall Street protest is evident. The cartoonist sees the protest as a bunch of immature young adults who don’t really know what they are fighting for. The cartoonist would gain credibility with any audience who also views the Occupy Wall Street protest in the same way. The only appeal to logos comes in the form of the cartoonist knowing about the Occupy Wall Street protest in general, but other than that there are no concrete facts. The cartoon appeal to pathos mainly as the boy is just mooching off of his family and nobody likes a person who leeches off of others. This human leech is meant to anger the audience and get them to connect to the issue.
The second cartoon again appeals to ethos in the form that the cartoonist’s take on the Occupy Wall Street protest is easy to figure out. The cartoonist shows the people of Wall Street in a bad light with them spitting and heckling the protesters. The cartoonist seems to agree with the protesters or at least is against the people of Wall Street. The cartoonist gains credibility with an audience that shares this view. Logos can be seen with the cartoonist’s knowledge of the Occupy Wall Street protest and their knowledge of the concept of “trickle down”, but this is the extent of any appeals to logos. This cartoon, as well as the first, appeals to pathos mostly. However, this cartoon wants people to feel anger not towards the protesters but the people of Wall Street. The Wall Street people are laughing and making fun of protesters who have been hurt mainly due to practices on Wall Street. The cartoonist sees that and wants the audience to be angered by that too.
In both pictures they appeal to pathos, logos, and some ethos.
ReplyDeletePathos because they're talking about Wall Street and how the protests aren't going very well at all.
Logos because it shows what's happened/happening to those that are protesting.
Ethos because it is a touchy subject right now and people tend not to talk about it.
These cartoons are not for the same audience by any means, the top one is for those that are against the protesters, and the bottom one, I believe is to show what the companies are doing to us, to get more protesters.
Occupy Basement mostly appeals to ethos. It seems as if that author believes that the protestors are lazy and do not really care about protesting. They are doing nothing useful in their parent's house, just like they are doing nothing useful by occupying Wall Street. Anyone who also sees the protesters in this way would agree with the author, appealing to ethos. The appeal to pathos can make you angry at the stupidity the teenager seems to show, or it seems comical at the irony of it all. I did not see an appeal to logos much, except for the fact that the author knows about Occupy Wall Street and the 99% to 1%.
ReplyDeleteThe Trickle Down cartoon appeals greatly to pathos. You feel bad for the 99% or people who are trying to get what they want. You might feel angry at the other 1% who don't seem to want to give more than their own spit. Ethos is shown for the 99% of people who agree that trickle down is giving us hardly anything.
The two cartoons are similar because they both show the "Occupy" people as being at the bottom of the totem pole. The audience for the first cartoon could be the teenagers who are occupying wall street, so they can see what they appear to be doing. The audience for the second cartoon could be the 1% of the population, so they can see how they are being perceived by 99% of the people. Therefore, the audiences are different.
The first cartoon uses pathos. It gives the impression that the people who are part of the Occupy Wall Street protest are unproductive, lazy people by showing the teenager playing video games and living in his parents basement.
ReplyDeleteThe second cartoon also uses pathos. It portrays wealthy people as disrespectful and cruel towards everyone else by showing them spitting on the crowds of protesters below.
The cartoons do not appeal to the same audiences. The first cartoon appeals to those who are against the Occupy Wall Street protest while the second cartoon appeals to those who are for the Occupy Wall Street protest.
Never will I forget the day that half of my freshman class walked out on their teachers during an exhilarating lesson on exponents to join a nearby protest outside the school fences. "It's freedom of speech" they mumbled, fists in the air. "America is a free country", another genius piped in. Two years later, and I guarantee you not a single student recalls why they walked out that day anyway. Another genius, this time in the portrayed cartoon has come home after a tedious day of hard work. Lounging on the couch of his parent's basement, the boy nonchalantly states the fact that he has been kicked out of his neighborhood park for protesting. Regardless, the lazy bum doesn't have a clue about what he's protesting about- his sign is hardly what you would call an attempt. This cartoon appeals to pathos. Truly makes you feel that many people are incompetent and don't know what they are doing.
ReplyDeleteThe second cartoon appeals to pathos as well I believe. The two gentlemen- spraying it, not saying it- are part of the elite 1% richest in America. They don't care about why the rest of us are protesting. Our opinions don't matter and never will. The appeal to pathos is easy to find, because you can truly understand why the remaining 99% of us are frustrated. We have no voice in this government.