Ditto

After reading chapters 5 and 6 from Thank you for Arguing I started to realize that the fact of fitting in is not always such a bad thing, and that it is a broader topic than what I thought. My opinions on the concept of fitting in connotes negativity to me. I have seen it as teenagers changing their looks to be liked by their classmates, and nothing else. I've always seen people suffer by trying to change who they are, and in what they believe only to be accepted by others and not have to feel being left behind. 

This concept of being "cool" and "uncool" has never been of my likeness, but now these chapters have opened my eyes. Now I see two things: one is that decorum or the propriety and good taste in conduct or appearance, is not always bad and second that fitting in and decorum though they might be similar are not always the same thing. Decorum, or also known as etiquette is also part of our everyday lives even though many people connote etiquette only to wearing fancy dresses and having elegant manners in a party. The same thing goes for fitting in. Though many people, such as me attribute it solely to high school teenagers, it is used in a variety of occasions as well. 

 

Decorum is used in every event, as you cannot walk into the grammy's wearing jeans, or into a catholic church wearing only a swimsuit, you would be stared weirdly if you walked into school wearing a tux. It is plainly weird and wrong. Likewise, Heinrichs says that to have decorum you have to "act the way your audience expects you to act - not necessarily like your audience" (pg. 69). This means that you don't have to mimic what everyone is doing, but rather do as people expect you to act. Here is when I realized decorum and fitting in were just a tad different. Nonetheless, Justin Bieber came to Bogotá, Colombia not more than a week ago, and ever since there has been news about him everyday, because he vandalized a street with graffiti. Many Colombians are furious, and it's one big of a scandal. Justin didn't act the way he was supposed to act, but rather defied his audiencewhich therefore led him into trouble. Would've Justin graffitied in another place, or someplace were it was not illegal and he had permission and not in a public street, things might have been different. 

As said in the book, decorum "has to do with the ability to match the audience's beliefs" (Pg. 59), and it "follows the audience's rules"(Pg. 70). The problem is that Justin didn't do that and that's why there is so much controversy about his graffiti. He didn't do what he was supposed to do, but rather did something that made his audience react negatively. Consequently, I believe this exhibits the importance of decorum not only in real life but in arguments too because without it not only it might turn out of hand and become a fight, but you might also fail to convince your audience of anything.