Last week, there I was in my brightly lit room, sitting in complete and utter frustration. I did not know what to do. I was lost. I had read two books, Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi and Invitation to a Beheading by Vladimir Nabokov, and I could not think of one single way to interrelate the two. I was sitting there in the middle of my bed for hours staring at a piece of paper, and nothing clicked. The sun was starting to set, and I had been there for hours shifting my eyes between my cell phone, to my computer, to my paper. And this went about for the longest time. Then, all the sudden, my brain decided to wake up. I was writing so fast that I could not completely understand my notes. I found over five similarities. I sat there in triumph, and smiled with revenge at Father Time, for he took away so much precious time. My biggest problem and dislike in writing has to be getting a paper started, but I also detest researching, so this research paper that I have to complete for my critical thinking course has been like a small child running through the neatly organized files of my mind. This week I plan on finding two more sources at the library for my research paper, and putting this unruly child to bed.
I plan on going to my school library today to find secondary sources for my research paper, but I am concerned. My research paper requires me to have five external sources, excluding the books on the topic, and they cannot be all from one medium, so off to the old brick-and-mortar library. My concern with going to my school library is that there will not be enough books on my topics. Since I have to finish this bad boy in a week, I need to keep my fingers crossed that they will have something pertaining to my research. Additionally, I will be searching online on my school’s virtual library. However, if I do encounter this problem then I will reroute to the library in town. But there is no point in dwelling on the what-ifs in life, so I will see what I have to do.
Right now, I have organized my outline, and I know exactly where I am going to be incorporating sources into each paragraph. It is just going to take some work and determination. I spent many hours staring into space. And Father Time has stolen too much from me. I am going to find those two secondary sources that I am relying on to finish my research paper by searching both virtual and actual libraries. I know I will finish it in time, I just know it. And that is exactly what I am going to keep repeating to myself while running through the aisles of the library. I am going to put this shrieking child to bed and relax my mind.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
E-mail and Conversation
E-mail differs from ordinary conversation in a couple of ways. The most obvious difference between e-mail and personal dialogue has to be the fact that one is face-to-face, while the other is electronically conducted. The second difference that is easily identifiable is that when you are emailing someone you do not necessarily get all of the interactive, or nonverbal, aspects that come along with it. For instance, one of my high school buddies and I would constantly e-mail each other in order to keep in touch. Our e-mail interaction was one long string of words composed of our heartbreaks and joys. One day though, I said something rather sarcastically through an e-mail, which would have been considered offensive if I had not said it in that tone. Alas, there was no tone. It sounded serious, seriously insulting. She was upset, but then I explained to her our miscommunication. Thus, nonverbal interactive aspects are lacking in the realm of e-mail. E-mail and conversation do differ, and that is apparent from anyone who has utilized the two.
Next, I was pondering on the idea of what kind of influence e-mail has on social discourse, and I came to the conclusion that it has both negative and positive attributes. The author of “The Other Side of E-Mail”, Robert Kuttner, sides with the primarily negative impacts that e-mail has on personal interactions. But that is simply one-sided. He shines a slight speckle of light on the positive impacts of e-mail, but is biased in his opinion because of his numerous negative encounters. I do agree with certain aspects of his argument, such as how e-mail is something that is insistent. “All of a sudden, on top of everything else we have to do, e-mail is one more garden demanding tending” (Kuttner). This statement is something I think about all the time. There is so much I already have to do in my daily schedule, and checking three e-mails sometimes is a tedious and tremendous task. On the overlooked positive note, I have to say that e-mail has an extremely positive impact on society. E-mail allows for communication everywhere in the world, and not only that, but fast communication. It is not a letter that will take days to ship, and it is not a telephone conversation that can run off track and waste precious time. Moreover, it allows for one to check at convenient times, despite the idea that it takes up a lot of time. And it’s defiantly not like a screaming telephone. Without e-mail we could not do many things in our daily lives. On the whole, there are negative aspects about e-mail, but I think I’ll take my chances.
Now, thinking about how we converse with each other offline is drastically different from when we e-mail each other, but maybe not in the future. There are many different things that go into personal interaction, such as eye contact, facial expressions, body language, and tone, to name a few. All of these things are not depicted through e-mail, and they add a lot to a conversation. However, I feel that technology is growing so advanced that you can build a real relationship online. My best friend and I actually met through my online high school, and I feel as though our text messages and e-mails are just as fulfilling as face-to-face interactions. On a similar note, look at online dating services. People seem to be able to build working relationships with each other, and do not seem to be effected by the virtual world. I think that eventually people will not really be able to differentiate interaction between e-mail or internet resources and real interactions. Right now, people can still see a difference between online resources, like e-mail, and real life interactions, but eventually I doubt they will see the difference.
Next, I was pondering on the idea of what kind of influence e-mail has on social discourse, and I came to the conclusion that it has both negative and positive attributes. The author of “The Other Side of E-Mail”, Robert Kuttner, sides with the primarily negative impacts that e-mail has on personal interactions. But that is simply one-sided. He shines a slight speckle of light on the positive impacts of e-mail, but is biased in his opinion because of his numerous negative encounters. I do agree with certain aspects of his argument, such as how e-mail is something that is insistent. “All of a sudden, on top of everything else we have to do, e-mail is one more garden demanding tending” (Kuttner). This statement is something I think about all the time. There is so much I already have to do in my daily schedule, and checking three e-mails sometimes is a tedious and tremendous task. On the overlooked positive note, I have to say that e-mail has an extremely positive impact on society. E-mail allows for communication everywhere in the world, and not only that, but fast communication. It is not a letter that will take days to ship, and it is not a telephone conversation that can run off track and waste precious time. Moreover, it allows for one to check at convenient times, despite the idea that it takes up a lot of time. And it’s defiantly not like a screaming telephone. Without e-mail we could not do many things in our daily lives. On the whole, there are negative aspects about e-mail, but I think I’ll take my chances.
Now, thinking about how we converse with each other offline is drastically different from when we e-mail each other, but maybe not in the future. There are many different things that go into personal interaction, such as eye contact, facial expressions, body language, and tone, to name a few. All of these things are not depicted through e-mail, and they add a lot to a conversation. However, I feel that technology is growing so advanced that you can build a real relationship online. My best friend and I actually met through my online high school, and I feel as though our text messages and e-mails are just as fulfilling as face-to-face interactions. On a similar note, look at online dating services. People seem to be able to build working relationships with each other, and do not seem to be effected by the virtual world. I think that eventually people will not really be able to differentiate interaction between e-mail or internet resources and real interactions. Right now, people can still see a difference between online resources, like e-mail, and real life interactions, but eventually I doubt they will see the difference.
Works Cited
Kuttner, Robert. “The Other Side of E-Mail.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 429. Print. 26 April 2011.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The purpose of silly drawings: A look at editorial cartoons
There I was in journalism class, and there was an uproar centered around one of the talented kids on the staff. She was the editorial cartoonist for the school paper, or perhaps still is, and she had just drawn an interesting caricature depicting a couple in love that just produced a baby. It was certainly uproarious, and everyone was ticked by this image. Editorial cartoons play an important part in the journalistic world and American culture. They are what many people turn to the second they grab their local newspaper. These editorial cartoons are used as a means of communication, entertainment, and they are unfortunately endangered.
Editorial cartoons are a communication medium. Mort Gerberg’s article “What Is a Cartoon?” asked multiple cartoonists what they think the definition of a cartoon pertains to, and he deducted that “the definitions say the same thing, but differently, varying with the approach of each cartoonist. I’ll define a cartoon as instant communication of a funny idea” (Gerberg). All of these cartoonists, including Gerberg, think that a cartoon is something that communicates an idea through images, and that they depict something funny. Now, these cartoons are used as a form of communication by showing an image that represents something that is common to the public. This common image that represents something in our everyday lives, allows for instant communication of the idea that they are trying to portray. Cartoonists can do this by emphasizing some sort of stereotype among our characters of society. Or “Cartoon characters must be of a very specific type. They are people we immediately recognize from life, people we know” (Gerberg). It is easy to communicate to the reader the cartoon’s purpose if the image is related to something we already know in life. Otherwise, if we did not know what the image was, we could not relate to it, thus it would not be communicating anything to us.
In regards to how this cartoon makes something funny or entertaining is depicted through the dialogue. “A cartoon caption is super-disciplined writing—about twelve words painstakingly chosen for their meaning, imagery and sound, then polished and strung together in a rhythm that puts the beat on the funny part” (Gerberg). According to this idea, the dialogue directs the entertainment to some extent. Of course, this is not for all cartoons seeing as how many cartoons do not need words at all make you laugh. An editorial cartoon contains many elements that the cartoonist needs to take into account in order to convey a message, simultaneously splitting their sides.
My journalism class cartoonist certainly did her job well, but unfortunately cartoonists’ jobs are slim. Editorial cartoonists are endangered, and by extension their work is too. According to Doug Marlette, “Cartoonists have been keeling over in startling numbers—down from almost 200 just 20 years ago to fewer than 90 today. The poisonous fumes laying us low are the byproduct of the corporate culture that has engulfed newspapering during the past two decades” (Marlette). Cartoonists are definitely not in demand right now, and that is not only a result of the economy, but in Marlette’s mind it is due to the craving of gaining newspaper readership. Newspapers are trying to gain business, just like any other business, and thus they do not want to provoke their readers, “the editorial cartoonists’ very reason for being is to provoke helps explain why they are the first to go” (Marlette). Therefore, there are fewer jobs for cartoonists due to their provocative nature, and that means less cartoons.
Hopefully that aspiring professional cartoonist in my journalism class will find a job so she can provoke all the people in the world. After all, some aspects of journalism are all about provoking the reader, like opinion articles. There are many elements that go into cartoons in order for there to be a message and laughs. A cartoonist takes their time trying to get across something meaningful to the reader. Cartoonists should not become extinct because if they do, then their art and messages go along with them.
Works Cited
Gerberg, Mort. “What Is a Cartoon?” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 429. Print. 26 April 2011.
Marlette, Doug. “Freedom of Speech and the Editorial Cartoon.”
Editorial cartoons are a communication medium. Mort Gerberg’s article “What Is a Cartoon?” asked multiple cartoonists what they think the definition of a cartoon pertains to, and he deducted that “the definitions say the same thing, but differently, varying with the approach of each cartoonist. I’ll define a cartoon as instant communication of a funny idea” (Gerberg). All of these cartoonists, including Gerberg, think that a cartoon is something that communicates an idea through images, and that they depict something funny. Now, these cartoons are used as a form of communication by showing an image that represents something that is common to the public. This common image that represents something in our everyday lives, allows for instant communication of the idea that they are trying to portray. Cartoonists can do this by emphasizing some sort of stereotype among our characters of society. Or “Cartoon characters must be of a very specific type. They are people we immediately recognize from life, people we know” (Gerberg). It is easy to communicate to the reader the cartoon’s purpose if the image is related to something we already know in life. Otherwise, if we did not know what the image was, we could not relate to it, thus it would not be communicating anything to us.
In regards to how this cartoon makes something funny or entertaining is depicted through the dialogue. “A cartoon caption is super-disciplined writing—about twelve words painstakingly chosen for their meaning, imagery and sound, then polished and strung together in a rhythm that puts the beat on the funny part” (Gerberg). According to this idea, the dialogue directs the entertainment to some extent. Of course, this is not for all cartoons seeing as how many cartoons do not need words at all make you laugh. An editorial cartoon contains many elements that the cartoonist needs to take into account in order to convey a message, simultaneously splitting their sides.
My journalism class cartoonist certainly did her job well, but unfortunately cartoonists’ jobs are slim. Editorial cartoonists are endangered, and by extension their work is too. According to Doug Marlette, “Cartoonists have been keeling over in startling numbers—down from almost 200 just 20 years ago to fewer than 90 today. The poisonous fumes laying us low are the byproduct of the corporate culture that has engulfed newspapering during the past two decades” (Marlette). Cartoonists are definitely not in demand right now, and that is not only a result of the economy, but in Marlette’s mind it is due to the craving of gaining newspaper readership. Newspapers are trying to gain business, just like any other business, and thus they do not want to provoke their readers, “the editorial cartoonists’ very reason for being is to provoke helps explain why they are the first to go” (Marlette). Therefore, there are fewer jobs for cartoonists due to their provocative nature, and that means less cartoons.
Hopefully that aspiring professional cartoonist in my journalism class will find a job so she can provoke all the people in the world. After all, some aspects of journalism are all about provoking the reader, like opinion articles. There are many elements that go into cartoons in order for there to be a message and laughs. A cartoonist takes their time trying to get across something meaningful to the reader. Cartoonists should not become extinct because if they do, then their art and messages go along with them.
Works Cited
Gerberg, Mort. “What Is a Cartoon?” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 429. Print. 26 April 2011.
Marlette, Doug. “Freedom of Speech and the Editorial Cartoon.”
Friday, April 29, 2011
Nevermore! Well, very soon
Last week I saw a one-man rendition of Edgar Allen Poe’s greatest literary works in Hollywood, specifically in Thai Town. I must say that the performer, Jeffrey Combs, was excellent. This show is described by Goldstar.com as such, “a one-man show celebrating Edgar Allen Poe’s bicentennial”. I first discovered this play through my usual gallivanting through Goldstar.com. Weirdly enough, I had never heard of Poe’s story of “The Raven”, but I knew the majority of the other poems and tales that Combs performed. The performer made the poems and tales come to life, and his dialogue was enticing.
My favorite part of his act of the night had to be of his eccentric performance of the poem, “The Bells”. I had read this poem in high school, and it never really held my attention. It felt never-ending. However, he literally made the poem come to life. I felt entranced by him prancing across the stage in a furry, simultaneously screaming, “The bells, bells, bells!”, while the crickets hummed ever-so-slightly in the background of the tranquil darkness. It was terrifying like the start of a roaring orchestra, and made my heart beat just as rapidly. But it was just as electrifyingly bright, and it made my eyes light up with curiosity and awe.
Another key part that held my attention, like of a gaze with a new found love was his dialogue about plagiarism. Seeing as how I am a writing tutor it makes sense that I could easily relate to this bit. Combs angrily discussed the lack of creativity in this world, and his expressed anger toward a fellow writer in his time that did not express his own ideas, but simply stole from others’ creativity, such as Shakespeare. This part touched me because I often ponder in depth on plagiarism, and how everything can really be constituted as such due to the fact that everyone has had the same idea at some point in time. There is a lack of creativity in this world, and even Poe saw that in his time.
I definitely recommend this one-man show to anyone who has had an interest in Edgar Allen Poe’s written words. For more information on attending Nevermore, visit Goldstar.com for tickets, or directly get your tickets through Steve Allen Theater. According to Goldstar.com, there are several more performances available to attend in May.
And I would like to leave you all with The Simpson’s version of “The Raven”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXKwA4xt-o&feature=related
My favorite part of his act of the night had to be of his eccentric performance of the poem, “The Bells”. I had read this poem in high school, and it never really held my attention. It felt never-ending. However, he literally made the poem come to life. I felt entranced by him prancing across the stage in a furry, simultaneously screaming, “The bells, bells, bells!”, while the crickets hummed ever-so-slightly in the background of the tranquil darkness. It was terrifying like the start of a roaring orchestra, and made my heart beat just as rapidly. But it was just as electrifyingly bright, and it made my eyes light up with curiosity and awe.
Another key part that held my attention, like of a gaze with a new found love was his dialogue about plagiarism. Seeing as how I am a writing tutor it makes sense that I could easily relate to this bit. Combs angrily discussed the lack of creativity in this world, and his expressed anger toward a fellow writer in his time that did not express his own ideas, but simply stole from others’ creativity, such as Shakespeare. This part touched me because I often ponder in depth on plagiarism, and how everything can really be constituted as such due to the fact that everyone has had the same idea at some point in time. There is a lack of creativity in this world, and even Poe saw that in his time.
I definitely recommend this one-man show to anyone who has had an interest in Edgar Allen Poe’s written words. For more information on attending Nevermore, visit Goldstar.com for tickets, or directly get your tickets through Steve Allen Theater. According to Goldstar.com, there are several more performances available to attend in May.
And I would like to leave you all with The Simpson’s version of “The Raven”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXKwA4xt-o&feature=related
Trump! And the stacked cards fell down
So we’ve most likely all heard about Donald Trump’s inquiries into President Obama’s citizenship. To give you the gist on the situation, Trump is demanding an actual birth certificate from Obama, just because. Obama was born in Hawaii, and their system of birth certificates is a little different from within the central part of the United States, but they do have some form of birth certification. Now that you know a little about the situation, I would like to give you some background information on my views of what a president is. In my opinion, a president is simply a figurehead. Of course, they sign off on important decisions, but I believe that their people behind the scenes make a huge contribution to those decisions, including the wants of American citizens. And I am certainly not belittling a president’s position or the committee behind the president, but rather I am stating that the country’s actions are not purely based off of one man’s decisions. Which brings me to my next point, Obama is a citizen of the United States, and he is really no different than you and I. He is simply human. He does not deserve the statements that are being directed toward him by Mr. Trump. I ask of you, would you like giving someone personal information on yourself, when that person is clearly out to get you. I most certainly would not, especially if I have the right not to show that information. Mr. Trump’s remarks can be considered to be a form of propaganda called card stacking, and Deborah Tannen, a linguistic professor, gives further insight into the likely reasons as to why Trump is requesting personal information on Obama.
Now, Trump’s remarks on Obama not really being a citizen of the United States is a form of card stacking, which is based off of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and their definition of card stacking. ““Card Stacking” is a device in which the propagandist employs all the arts of deception to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal” (Institute). This being the case, it seems fair to assume that Trump is doing is implementing this very action. You see, Trump wants to become president in the next election. What Trump is trying to do is use “the arts of deception to win support for himself”, and bring less support to Obama during election time (Institute). Next, “He uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to doge issues and evades facts” (Institute). I don’t know how many of you have seen Mr. Trump talk, but whoa, watch out! There is a lot of over-emphasizing going on there. This over-emphasizing is shown clearly in a video interview with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie. Guthrie states that Trump is “out on an island on this issue”, and his rebuttal is overtly emphasized, even almost sassy (Guthrie). Finally, the Institute states that, “By means of [card stacking] propagandists would convince us that a ruthless war of aggression is a crusade for righteousness” (Institute). Trump has convinced many American citizens already based off of just inquiry into the matter. In fact, according to CNN “More than four in 10 Republicans … believe [Obama] probably or definitely was not born in America” (Tuchman). He has convinced these Republicans by the means of aggression toward the issue, and nothing more. He has made them believe that his actions are righteous. However, Trump is just a propagandist that has fooled those Republicans.
In “Taking TV’s “War of Words” Too Literally”, Deborah Tannen gives insight as to why Trump is inquiring on Obama’s birth certificate. I found that the soul basis of Tannen’s argument, ironically enough seeing as how her essay is about the argumentative ways of society, is that “Everywhere we turn, there is evidence that, in public discourse, we prize contentiousness and aggression more than cooperation and conciliation” (Tannen). Trump is definitely in this category, seeing as how he loves aggressive arguments. People like Trump, “don’t just portray their subjects warts and all, but set out to dig up as much dirt as possible, as if the story of a person’s life is contained in the warts, only the warts, and nothing but the warts” (Tannen). Trump is attacking President Obama, and is trying to portray him as a warty intruder, but instead Trump’s face is sprouting all sorts of warts. Furthermore, Tannen goes on saying, “It’s all part of what I call the argument culture, which rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done”. Once again, this depicts Trump nicely seeing as how for no reason he is prying into the private life of Obama, which I may remind you is a human being like you and I. Trump is purposefully indulging in the argumentative culture. Certainly, he believes “The best way to begin an essay is to attack someone” (Tannen). That is who Trump is, and why he is consistently questioning the President of his citizenship, he is part of the argumentative culture.
Would you allow for yourself to be objected to the ridicule that President Obama is undergoing by Trump? Sure, he gets paid for it, but nonetheless he is human. He has daughters and a wife that he goes home to every night, and he has the worrisome burden of the world upon his shoulders. He has plenty of worries. He does not need to appease Trump’s irrational questions. Why should he have to bow down to the request of someone whose intentions are to stir a pot of propaganda? Clearly, card stacking is in Trump’s electoral agenda, and he is definitely part of the argumentative culture.
Now, Trump’s remarks on Obama not really being a citizen of the United States is a form of card stacking, which is based off of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and their definition of card stacking. ““Card Stacking” is a device in which the propagandist employs all the arts of deception to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal” (Institute). This being the case, it seems fair to assume that Trump is doing is implementing this very action. You see, Trump wants to become president in the next election. What Trump is trying to do is use “the arts of deception to win support for himself”, and bring less support to Obama during election time (Institute). Next, “He uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to doge issues and evades facts” (Institute). I don’t know how many of you have seen Mr. Trump talk, but whoa, watch out! There is a lot of over-emphasizing going on there. This over-emphasizing is shown clearly in a video interview with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie. Guthrie states that Trump is “out on an island on this issue”, and his rebuttal is overtly emphasized, even almost sassy (Guthrie). Finally, the Institute states that, “By means of [card stacking] propagandists would convince us that a ruthless war of aggression is a crusade for righteousness” (Institute). Trump has convinced many American citizens already based off of just inquiry into the matter. In fact, according to CNN “More than four in 10 Republicans … believe [Obama] probably or definitely was not born in America” (Tuchman). He has convinced these Republicans by the means of aggression toward the issue, and nothing more. He has made them believe that his actions are righteous. However, Trump is just a propagandist that has fooled those Republicans.
In “Taking TV’s “War of Words” Too Literally”, Deborah Tannen gives insight as to why Trump is inquiring on Obama’s birth certificate. I found that the soul basis of Tannen’s argument, ironically enough seeing as how her essay is about the argumentative ways of society, is that “Everywhere we turn, there is evidence that, in public discourse, we prize contentiousness and aggression more than cooperation and conciliation” (Tannen). Trump is definitely in this category, seeing as how he loves aggressive arguments. People like Trump, “don’t just portray their subjects warts and all, but set out to dig up as much dirt as possible, as if the story of a person’s life is contained in the warts, only the warts, and nothing but the warts” (Tannen). Trump is attacking President Obama, and is trying to portray him as a warty intruder, but instead Trump’s face is sprouting all sorts of warts. Furthermore, Tannen goes on saying, “It’s all part of what I call the argument culture, which rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done”. Once again, this depicts Trump nicely seeing as how for no reason he is prying into the private life of Obama, which I may remind you is a human being like you and I. Trump is purposefully indulging in the argumentative culture. Certainly, he believes “The best way to begin an essay is to attack someone” (Tannen). That is who Trump is, and why he is consistently questioning the President of his citizenship, he is part of the argumentative culture.
Would you allow for yourself to be objected to the ridicule that President Obama is undergoing by Trump? Sure, he gets paid for it, but nonetheless he is human. He has daughters and a wife that he goes home to every night, and he has the worrisome burden of the world upon his shoulders. He has plenty of worries. He does not need to appease Trump’s irrational questions. Why should he have to bow down to the request of someone whose intentions are to stir a pot of propaganda? Clearly, card stacking is in Trump’s electoral agenda, and he is definitely part of the argumentative culture.
Works Cited
Institute for Propaganda Analysis. “How to Detect Propaganda.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 429. Print. 26 April 2011.
Tannen, Deborah. “Taking TV’s “War of Words” Too Literally.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 429. Print. 26 April 2011.
Guthrie, Savannah. “Trump: ‘The world is destroying our country.” Today. msnbc, 26 April 2011. Web. 26 April 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42762170/ns/politics-more_politics/.
Tuchman, Gary. “CNN investigation: Obama born in U.S..” CNN Politics. CNN, 25 April 2011. Web. 26 April 2011. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/index.html.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Lord Voldemort!: The consideration of taboo language and television
The world is always changing, and there are always new standards on what is considered okay, and what is simply not okay to do in society. Of course there are certain things that have stayed pretty much consistent throughout time in our society, such as certain taboos in place, like killing and incest. However, taboos in language are a little different. Words are changing, due to the world always changing. Words take on new meanings, and they can turn into words that should not be spoken, or words that can be spoken. This reminds me of Harry Potter, and how no one says Lord Voldemort’s name. This society in Harry Potter knows what this ghastly man, or Sorcerer, did in their time, and that is why they never speak his name because his name is considered a taboo word. Conversely, the people in the world we consider to be real, the Muggles, have no idea who this Lord Voldemort is, so it would not be a bad thing if they were to utter his name. You see, this Wizard’s name is considered a taboo in the society of the Wizardly world, yet in the powerless Muggles world there is no meaning placed on this word, so it is not considered something bad. Therefore, the question is brought to light, should we protect our society from taboo language on television, or should we expose it to the world because they are just words?
Taboo language on television is often not accepted by society, and this is primary due to the fact that people are sometimes sensitive to certain words, and people feel that children should not be exposed to such words for replication. Words are considered taboo for a reason, just like Lord Voldemort. Words have the ability to offend and hash up awful memories. People should not have to be exposed to certain taboo words while watching their favorite program on television. They should not be upset when listening to something that is supposed to take their mind off of the worries of the world. That is not the purpose of television. Television is there to entertain, and help a person escape from the world in which they live in. On the opposing side of this argument, people believe that taboo language should be exposed on television since it is what “real people” say in reality (McWhorter). However, that defeats the purpose of television. We live in the real world, and are encountered with “real people” and vulgar taboo language all the time (McWhorter). Thus, why should we turn something designated for entertainment into something that can offend and hurt, when it is the soul thing we are trying to escape. That is nonsensical. Of course, in the opposition’s defense television is sometimes reserved for educational and informative reasons, although the majority of people use it as a means of happiness. Next on the agenda for discussion are children and taboo language on television. This is a pretty clear cut case. Children should not be exposed all willy-nilly to taboo language on television due to the simple reason that they can replicate it in their own language. Children will soak up anything like a sponge. And if television allows for taboo language to be incorporated into everyday television shows that children watch, then they can harm their classmates and other children they interact with some hurtful language that can impact them negatively. Yet, people protest that it is not a realistic representation of life. However, it is up to the parent of that child to expose them to taboo language, not the media. The idea of a life where television presents taboo language is not a place of happiness or fairness.
In the entirety of this situation it is up to society to decide what is right, and what is not. It is up to society to deem what language is taboo, and what to show on television based off of taboo language. Right now, censorship puts restrictions of taboo language on television, unless you watch late-night television. But that is how things are presently. As I stated before, the world is always changing, and one day there might not be censorship on taboo language on television. In the mean time, let us protect our citizens and children from taboo language on television.
Works Cited
McWhorter, John. “Letting Words Fly.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 424. Print. 19 March 2011.
Taboo language on television is often not accepted by society, and this is primary due to the fact that people are sometimes sensitive to certain words, and people feel that children should not be exposed to such words for replication. Words are considered taboo for a reason, just like Lord Voldemort. Words have the ability to offend and hash up awful memories. People should not have to be exposed to certain taboo words while watching their favorite program on television. They should not be upset when listening to something that is supposed to take their mind off of the worries of the world. That is not the purpose of television. Television is there to entertain, and help a person escape from the world in which they live in. On the opposing side of this argument, people believe that taboo language should be exposed on television since it is what “real people” say in reality (McWhorter). However, that defeats the purpose of television. We live in the real world, and are encountered with “real people” and vulgar taboo language all the time (McWhorter). Thus, why should we turn something designated for entertainment into something that can offend and hurt, when it is the soul thing we are trying to escape. That is nonsensical. Of course, in the opposition’s defense television is sometimes reserved for educational and informative reasons, although the majority of people use it as a means of happiness. Next on the agenda for discussion are children and taboo language on television. This is a pretty clear cut case. Children should not be exposed all willy-nilly to taboo language on television due to the simple reason that they can replicate it in their own language. Children will soak up anything like a sponge. And if television allows for taboo language to be incorporated into everyday television shows that children watch, then they can harm their classmates and other children they interact with some hurtful language that can impact them negatively. Yet, people protest that it is not a realistic representation of life. However, it is up to the parent of that child to expose them to taboo language, not the media. The idea of a life where television presents taboo language is not a place of happiness or fairness.
In the entirety of this situation it is up to society to decide what is right, and what is not. It is up to society to deem what language is taboo, and what to show on television based off of taboo language. Right now, censorship puts restrictions of taboo language on television, unless you watch late-night television. But that is how things are presently. As I stated before, the world is always changing, and one day there might not be censorship on taboo language on television. In the mean time, let us protect our citizens and children from taboo language on television.
Works Cited
McWhorter, John. “Letting Words Fly.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 424. Print. 19 March 2011.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
That’s So Gay: The spread of prejudicial language
So I turned on the tube the other day and saw a very interesting commercial with Wanda Sykes walking up to a few boys in a restaurant. The boys were talking, and they said “That’s so gay” ("That's So Gay"). In that moment Sykes swiftly gets up, and references a pepper shaker to the boy who said those harmful words, and she did so by stating, “Man this pepper shaker is so sixteen year old boy with a cheesy mustache”. Sykes is basically stating that people should not spread the usage of prejudicial language, and should examine what they are saying more closely. Society has become very familiar and accepting of the word “gay” to reference to things as essentially stupid. That is extremely insulting to the gay community because then it is implying that gay people are stupid, which is certainly not true and is a wrongful generalization. So how do words like “gay” become so popularly accepted in our everyday life? There are many ways this can happen, although prejudicial language can be easily spread through movies, television, books, and music.
The media and written word can multiply prejudicial language like festering bacteria because they can be easily widespread in the community. Movies and television have the ability to spread prejudicial language based on the likeability of storyline or characters. A television show that is extremely prejudicial and well liked is Family Guy. Sure, Family Guy makes light of serious situations, although in real life they are serious. The fact that people like Family Guy’s characters and storyline help spread prejudicial language. Also, books can spread prejudicial messages in language like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which was prejudicial against the Jewish race. This influenced a lot of people to follow in these prejudicial messages and ideas against the Jewish race. Music can also create prejudicial language among society because it can make something sound “cool”, and most important it can come off as acceptable. Songs have the ability to make prejudicial language acceptable because they are catchy and cool sounding. When a song is catchy people tend to sing it, and that message that the song is projecting is unknowingly enforced by that person. You see it all the time, someone will be singing sort of song, and not even realize what they are saying. Sometimes they don’t even know all the words, like me. Movies, television, books, and music all have the power to increase prejudicial language.
Wanda Sykes was trying to extinguish the wildfire of prejudicial language with her commercial, and I think that’s what we all need to do. We all need to grab a brimming bucket full of water, and smother the fire at the base of the blue. It is okay to watch shows like Family Guy, although we shouldn’t implement those hateful ideas or messages into our lives. In fact, it is sort of a guidebook on how not to act. In addition, books that share hateful language should be put aside. Finally, music that expresses prejudicial language should not be repeated like a squawking parrot. We all need to look at what influences our lives, and examine ways to take out prejudicial language.
The media and written word can multiply prejudicial language like festering bacteria because they can be easily widespread in the community. Movies and television have the ability to spread prejudicial language based on the likeability of storyline or characters. A television show that is extremely prejudicial and well liked is Family Guy. Sure, Family Guy makes light of serious situations, although in real life they are serious. The fact that people like Family Guy’s characters and storyline help spread prejudicial language. Also, books can spread prejudicial messages in language like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which was prejudicial against the Jewish race. This influenced a lot of people to follow in these prejudicial messages and ideas against the Jewish race. Music can also create prejudicial language among society because it can make something sound “cool”, and most important it can come off as acceptable. Songs have the ability to make prejudicial language acceptable because they are catchy and cool sounding. When a song is catchy people tend to sing it, and that message that the song is projecting is unknowingly enforced by that person. You see it all the time, someone will be singing sort of song, and not even realize what they are saying. Sometimes they don’t even know all the words, like me. Movies, television, books, and music all have the power to increase prejudicial language.
Wanda Sykes was trying to extinguish the wildfire of prejudicial language with her commercial, and I think that’s what we all need to do. We all need to grab a brimming bucket full of water, and smother the fire at the base of the blue. It is okay to watch shows like Family Guy, although we shouldn’t implement those hateful ideas or messages into our lives. In fact, it is sort of a guidebook on how not to act. In addition, books that share hateful language should be put aside. Finally, music that expresses prejudicial language should not be repeated like a squawking parrot. We all need to look at what influences our lives, and examine ways to take out prejudicial language.
Works Cited
“That’s So Gay.” ThinkB4YouSpeak. Ad Council, n.d. Web. 13 April 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)