Rhetorical Triangle Tags Used in Events

At the beginning of this video, the elderly woman claims that the ICE officers would not "get to scare folks on [her] block" while she is around. Here we can infer that the elderly woman and the others on the block are all stakeholders in this situation. The audience would like know from current events that the ICE officers plan to arrest those who were deemed to have been in the country illegally, so they could conclude that the freedom of the elderly woman and of others who live on that block would be on the line. The elderly woman also presents herself as a heroic figure by claiming to be the force that prevents the ICE officers from harming those who live on the block. This heroic presentation can be seen as an appeal to ethos as the audience is more apt to see the woman in a positive light since she is trying to protect those who are vulnerable.

Throughout the video, the appearances of both the elderly woman and the ICE officers are wearing have some oddities that could hint at the video having synthetic origins. The texture of the elderly woman's hair appears a bit blurry in the video and the colors of her hair and scarf seem unrealistically vibrant. The uniforms of the ICE officers seem to have minor differences from one another with the one farther from the camera having an extra chest bar saying "police". Furthermore, the officer further away from the camera seems to have "ICE" listed twice on the top chest bar, reading "ICEICE". The contents of the top chest bar cannot be 100% confirmed, however, since the officer in front obscures the right side of the chest bar. These oddities could potentially damage the credibility of the communicator since these discrepancies would likely make the audience dismiss the video as fake and the communicator as acting disingenuous.

At this point in the video, the officers are responding to the elderly woman's claim that they are acting unjustly by claiming that they are performing a "lawful investigation". This is an attempt at appealing logos since they are giving a particular reason for their actions. Their job as officers is to investigate and handle violations of the law and they are claiming that their actions as depicted in this video align with that job. The fact that the officers are claiming to do their job also gives them a stake in this video as if they fail to do their job properly, it can be concluded that they stand the risk of losing it.

At this point in the video, the elderly woman being depicted questions the lawfulness of the ICE officers' actions in this video, noting that they "don't even have a warrant with a judge's name on it". This information damages the credibility of the ICE officers since they seem to be acting outside the law while claiming that they are acting within the law. There is also an element of logos in her statement since the elderly woman is responding to the counterargument that presented by the officers that they are conducting a "lawful investigation" by giving an example of a law that they are violating in their investigating, that being them needing a warrant before performing the investigation that they are attempting to do.

In this interval, the elderly woman says that "[she] knows her rights [and] so does everyone watching". In this statement, there is both ethos and pathos at play here. For ethos, the elderly woman claims to have knowledge of the rights that the laws of the United States gives her, so the audience is more inclined to trust her conclusion due to her being informed of the topic of this situation. For pathos, the elderly woman's statement appeals to the audience in the way that she claims that they also are familiar with the topic at hand, which presents the evidence that she uses in her argument (officers requiring a warrant to perform an investigation) as common knowledge. Therefore, the audience would be more likely to side with the woman in this video because of that common knowledge.

This AI generated video shows a server and three to four ICE agents seated at a Mexican/Spanish restaurant. The server is visibly upset and begins to yell at the ICE agents about them disrupting the normalcy of so many people’s lives. She is likely especially upset because the culture they are enjoying is one that is shared by people that they predominantly affect. In the background of the video, a generally calm restaurant can be seen and the other customers hardly react. This is likely because everyone in this video is AI generated and thus, would not have a ‘normal’ reaction to someone shouting. The agents' semi-shocked expressions establish a sharp tonal contrast between authority and public backlash. This frames the encounter as conflict rather than casual interaction.

One of the ICE agents briefly shouts "No!" in response, but their reaction lacks physical realism. The neon orange juice does not visibly stain their clothes, and they make no effort to clean themselves. This detail exposes the constructed nature of the video and destabilizes its ethos. The artificialty raises questions about credibility, that is, the scenario feels emotionally real, yet physically implausible. Their underwhelming response may suggest emotional fatigue, implying that backlash is common for them, it may simply reflect incomplete AI prompting. Either way, the lack of realistic reaction contributes to the rhetorical message. ICE agents appear to attempt normalcy even in moments of confrontation. The artificial realism highlights how AI can simulate political conflict while subtly revealing its own fabrication.

The restaurant patrons remain largely passive observers. Two women in matching outfits appear mildly frightened, but the overall reaction is subdued. In a real-life scenario, such an outburst would likely produce stronger reactions, management involvement, or visible chaos. The muted background response signals the artificial construction of the scene and weakens its realism. This detail complicates the video’s persuasive strategy. While the conflict is emotionally intense, the environment lacks authentic social dynamics. The AI simulation attempts to replicate everyday life but cannot fully reproduce spontaneous human behavior. This reinforces how the video uses artificial realism to dramatize political tension while subtly exposing the limits of AI-generated storytelling.

The server demands that the ICE agents leave, escalating the confrontation from symbolic protest to attempted expulsion. The restaurant, typically a site of cultural enjoyment and communal gathering, becomes a space of resistance. This final moment reinforces the central group theme: ICE agents attempt to move through everyday life as though everything is normal, yet their presence renders that normalcy unstable for others. There have been countless articles that collect anecdotes of people fearful of leaving their homes (Carcamo). Even though the video is AI-generated and depicts a fabricated scenario, the emotional reaction it seeks to provoke is real. The artificial construction allows the creator to stage political irony without documenting an actual event. This blurring of fiction and realism amplifies persuasion while complicating trust, authorship, and ethical representation.

The agents stand up from their seats, possibly to assert dominance over the server. This shift in posture visually reinforces instiutional authority. By physically elevating themselves, they attempt to reclaim control of the space. However, the gesture lacks escalation; no one intervenes, and the confrontation remains contained. The background diners continue reacting mildly, which feels unnatural and underscores the AI-generated environment. This moment reinforces the theme of abnormality. The agents attempt to behave as though this is a routine inconvenience, yet their presence has already disrupted the social atmosphere. The act of standing symbolizes authority reasserting itself, even when challenged within a culturally significant space.

There is a 'news reporter' speaking in the background of this video. This reporter is describing the scene that is happening on the street. By having a news reporter, people are more likely to believe what is going on in this video as they are often trusted to give out correct information. It also allows for the context to be better understood, so that anyone who stumbles upon this video can get the version of the story that this creator made up. This can create many issues for actual reporters and people who watch the news. By including a 'reporter', the creator has made this video seem like a trustworthy source and that can harm those who watch it or are included in it. "That confusion can lead individuals to feel justified in taking actions based on narratives that aren’t grounded in reality, which is where the real danger lies—not just in the content itself, but in how it’s interpreted and acted upon,” Arter says."(Parham).The tone is also set up by using this 'reporters' voice, as it makes it seem like this is a real and serious event happening.

This video shows a group of five people who are wearing colorful coats chasing two ice agents across a snowy road. The ice agents and the 'drag queens' are running with no trouble, not slipping on the road at all even though there is a large amount of snow on the sidewalks. One ice agent breaks off from the other, runs over the top of the car, and then lands on the road with no difficulty at all. This section is a show of ethos as it is displaying the 'drag queens' chasing ice agents with no other context beforehand. This is also a show of the creators message, that ice agents are being chased out by a well known group of people and the agents are not welcomed in this area. Lastly, it shows major stakeholders, the 'drag queens'. Drag queens are a huge part of many political and social debates, "By labeling these communities “criminals,” S-Comm and other similar programs undermine the ability of communities and policymakers to create long-term solutions to these critical issues."(We're coming out against the Ice Secure Communities Program), if this video were seen and shared by the wrong people, the community could get backlash for actions that they had no participation in.

This segment specifically identifies these people as Drag Queens. This information cannot be determined simply by looking at the people, their only identifying feature is their brightly colored coats. While these are only AI generated people, real people who perform drag or are a part of similar communities are impacted by the implications that they are participating in intimidating or actively chasing ICE agents. According to an article by One Colorado, "Immigrants who are LGBT are particularly vulnerable to detention and deportation because they are more likely to come into contact with law enforcement through police profiling and discriminatory enforcement of minor offenses..."(We're coming out against the Ice Secure Communities Program), this video is likely to be more vulnerable to discrimination and police profiling. This makes not only Drag Queens stakeholders, but anyone who identifies as LGBTQ+ or is simply associated with them.

The principal hitting the ICE agent immediately evokes shock, serving as a hook that keeps the audience watching. Similar to many other sensational news clips or videos created to cause social outrage, this short begins with a high level of tension brewing between the two parties involved: dutiful ICE agents and the determined public school. The principal is portrayed as the leader, protector, and hero in the video; the communicator aims to elicit a moral connection with the audience. The ICE agents, on the other hand, are shown as weak, apathetic, and unfocused. They are shown rushing into the entrance, seemingly without a purpose for what to do with the principal or the students, when the principal recklessly decides to hit one of the agents.

The video shows that one of the children is wearing a hoodie that reads "ICE." This is inconsistent with the purpose and message of the clip, as the student is supposedly showing support for the political entity. Rhetorically, the video loses ethos when subtle inconsistencies like this occur, thereby weakening the audience's trust in the account, video, and content. If the audience catches the mistake, they are likely not to be persuaded by the video as they may have realized that it is AI-generated, or possibly staged, thinking it is a satirical or ironic representation. The fact that the child’s clothing appears near the end of the video lowers the chances of the audience pinpointing this mistake, which may have been an intentional measure taken by the communicator of the video.