The main argument from the op-ed, Do people really need to be protected from the New Zealand shooter’s footagefootage? is that, since the shooter had filmed his act of terrorism, it showed a sense of power. The op-ed focuses on the racism that was portrayed in the terrorismviolent act. The tone is very dark and shallow, as it explains the terror of genocide. In the op-ed it says, “those aiming to suppress the gunman’s video of the mosque shootings worry that, in watching it, viewers might inadvertently taste the rapture of a Doom-like environment. Further, they might crave for themselves an actual first-person, real-life experience of mass murder.”
This example explains how the gunman’s video of the mosque shootings could possibly give the viewers an interest in this real-life experience. The author argues how this shooter had planned his racial act and that filming the shootings had made the situation worse. The author persuades the audience to show hatred towardstoward this terrifying actact of violence and for them not to be brainwashed into such horrorhorrors. In the op-ed, a statement mentionednoted that many viewers had kept the disgusting video, which is absurd and cruel. In my opinion, no one needs to have access to thesethis horrifying videos,video; it is not humane.
The op-ed is very well structured, as it provides topic sentences that drawsdraw attention to the readers. The article is based on a serious topic and the author organizes it very effectively asso that the reader understands the argument. The publication explains how the audience had individually taken the situation in different ways. Some had agreed with the horrific act and preached on white supremacy, and others had mourned for the innocent lives that were murderedlost. The argument is very strong and provides solid details thatto support the statements.