srsly tryna blog here

language is a thing that can b rly gr8, or rly awkward. sometimes u can communicate ur ideas well, n other times they can get completely lost in translation. n it's weird 2 think that English especially is so diverse that we've developed unique dialects spoken by tons of different ppl. technology has gr8ly helped progress n shape da way we behave ; ppl often find themselves thinking in txt speak n whatnot. But just like that, we're forced to code switch everyday; sometimes when addressing authority figures, and others when we need to sound more official and intelligent. Which strikes me as odd, personally, because how can speaking a language a certain way impact your entire life?

language elitism is totally a thing, n as much as we'd like 2 think it's not a daily occurrence, it is. even when ppl hear some1 at the grocery store stuttering to get their message across, they make assumptions. y doesn't that person bother 2 learn proper English? as anzaldua alluded 2, "If you're not going to learn how to speak like an American, go back to Mexico where you belong." or if we hear a foreigner who didn't learn English as their 1st language speaking it, we think they sound awkward, or strange. our society 2day has created such a stigma around anything that's not our standard English, or our accepted form of "casual English"; n if no 1 takes u srsly from the start, how can u communicate anything to anyone?

Although you can understand the (uncomfortable) text speak I tried to write in, understanding and comprehending truly are two different things. Does the message come across with nearly as much depth as opposed to if I had written it in standard English? Probably not. But even then, there's a phenomena at play: there's a certain ethos associated with different dialects of English. And in a day and age where this kind of speak is used on a daily basis, could this stigma be heightened or completely done away with?

As a great man once said, "the medium is the massage," the medium clearly plays a big role in communicating, let alone trying to communicate philosophy. It's not uncommon for people to get in arguments over what a text means, because there's so much ambiguity hidden in the few words typed. Meaning that as long as digital messaging exists, the world of communication will always be a diverse lingual experience. Text speak can't possibly be taken seriously, while standard English is the tool used to really nail your point down. Some people are more skillful than others at code switching; so can they really be communicating anything meaningful via "casual English?" Language has become more about self-expression in modern times, and in this process, the messages trying to be conveyed can often be lost.

Target Targets a Tricky Audience

In this period of social change and shifting ideologies, it's not farfetched to think about companies trying to utilize a new/growing audience by changing their advertisement tactics. Specifically, equality for all sexualities and genders is a big topic currently that can bring a large amount of attention to a company if used correctly. Target, the second largest discount retail store company, was not shy to implement this tactic, and did so by promoting a gay couple on their latest wedding gift registry advertisement.

At first glance, the ad shows a happy couple bent towards each other and holding hands, with confetti falling around them. Before even reading the text, you can tell that their unity is a positive, celebratory occasion. They seem just as joyous and in love as any other couple, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. Underneath the Target logo, placed in the corner somewhat discreetly but still noticeably, it reads "that's love." Such a phrase doesn't market their products with anything like celebrity endorsements or feel good statements like "our products will make you skinnier!" It markets them with love; love doesn't discriminate based on gender. This can make the reader feel many different ways: some will feel disgusted, others will feel confident and glad to see such an advertisement being put out by such a large company. Target puts themselves under scrutiny by supporting such a controversial topic, but continues to market their product anyways.

For some, this advertisement will evoke anger; for others, it might be seen as a step in the right direction towards acceptance of different sexualities. Their line "as unique as the two of you" shows the viewer that it's okay to have a unique sexuality; they can still live a fulfilling life and be as successful as this couple. Target effectively builds up their own ethos by appealing towards LGBTQ customers, couples, and supporters alike. I think the ad is very effective in showing that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; being portrayed in the same light as a heterosexual couple, they share the same happiness and love that everyone else does. Target boldly promotes self-love and strength in individuality in a controversial, but effective way.

A Fairly Odd Show

Fairly OddParents, created by Butch Hartman in 2001, was a Nickelodeon cartoon show about a 10-year old boy named Timmy Turner whose life was filled with "doom and gloom," until he was suddenly given a set of magical fairies to grant him wishes. Each episode revolved around a wish usually caused by a mishap that highlighted something Timmy didn't have, whether it be love or money or popularity. 

The character set was arguably diverse, but however did portray some stereotypes; surprisingly, these stereotypes are all reflected on white people. Timmy's family is a "typical" middle-class, white, American family, and along with everyone else on the show, are native English speakers. His fairy godparents, although technically cannot be assigned a race, are both drawn in a way that suggests they are also white. Timmy's two best friends are AJ and Chester: AJ is black and very intelligent, while Chester is portraying the stereotype of being a "country bum," and living in a trailer park with his retired baseball playing dad who wears a paper bag over his head. Less prominent characters also include Elmer, who is a "white, nerdy kid" with a giant talking boil on his face, and Francis, a white, "emo" kid who gets a kick out of picking on Timmy, and is usually drawn with somber eyes and wearing all black. Vicky, his evil babysitter, represents the average teenage girl, in a stuck-up, snooty light. Trixie Tang, the main love interest, seems to be Asian by the way she is drawn, and is the classic "popular girl," who is too good for most common people's business. Overall, the cast is seen with many different stereotypes, but surprisingly are put on white people, rather than the other minority characters.

The show doesn't play into what we think as "normal" gender roles at times; at others, it's pretty clear what message they're trying to get across. For example, Cosmo and Wanda both fit into the "relaxed husband and nagging wife" mold perfectly. Most of the females who are on the show don't seem to be extraordinarily bright, but most of them are brighter than the males. People like Timmy's dad, Cosmo, Timmy, Chip Skylark, etc. seem to have no idea what's going on most of the time, but are blissfully ignorant and almost always seem to have a better time than the girls. There's not much question on masculinity and femininity: if anything the males have more variety in exhibiting feminine traits than vice versa. All the couples are also monogamous and heterosexual.

The biggest message I took away from the show was instant gratification wasn't always what you thought it would be, and often times came with more negatives than positives. However, I couldn't help but still want some sort of magical presence to guide me through life anyways. While not ostracizing specific groups, the show doesn't take many leaps into taboo issues like switching gender roles. 

Maybe It's Because I'm Forced to Be Here

One of the greatest examples of dual purpose that is still very much around and present is the classroom. Classrooms are extremely versatile places: they are shaped intensely both by the creator and the interpreter (a.k.a. the teacher and the student). Many of us feel a certain way even just stepping through the door, and much can be taken away from not only the decorations strung about the walls, but the very person who has hung them up.

Imagine you're walking into your least favorite class, at the very end of the day. A sudden feeling of distress, an "oh crap, did I finish my homework?" races through your mind, and you just can't help but stare at the clock placed conveniently in front of you, and wait for time to pass. But, you're supposed to have a better attitude, right? This is your center of learning, the key to the rest of your future; although you can't help but feel differently when the teacher apathetically begins their lecture and the tacky educational posters seem to be more mocking than motivating. Believe it or not, this mundane everyday chore is some sort of organized visual argument. What exactly is it that the teacher has set up around the room to try and make their less than enthusiastic students somehow feel energized enough to learn?

You know those posters that have really generic philosophical quotes on them about learning, which are accompanied by a picture of an animal? Albeit being extremely basic, their presence alone creates a visual argument in the classroom. By the teacher hanging them up, you might think: "Wow, they really want us to do well (and also have a dry sense of humor)." And this is exactly the type of message they want taken away from this; it's a small boost for their ethos. Some teachers like to hang model students' work up on their board, making sure everyone knows that if they can achieve excellence, so can you. Even just the organization of the room plays a big role in ethos: a disorganized classroom reflects poorly on the teacher, and upon a student first seeing this, they'll instantly dismiss the class as unimportant, or irrelevant. After all, if the teacher doesn't care, why should they?

Teachers love to believe that everyone is as passionate and bent on education as they are, but that is often not the case. And it can be argued that even changing the classroom would provide a fix to this. Personally, I can say a classroom that is set up in a seminar-like manner quells my fears much better than one set up in cookie cutter rows. Although sometimes unkempt, awkward, or just plain bland, the medium definitely is the massage. 

The Second Key to Destiny: Society?

            For the longest time when I was little, I can remember one thing and pretty much one thing I heard that really stuck out to me: “You can be whatever you want to be if you set your mind to it!” This covered the spectrum of being a lawyer, or a doctor, all the way to a football playing king in space. But as I grew, I realized that the latter was a little less achievable than I had previously hoped. Now being surrounded by an environment full of ambition and fast approaching future, everyone’s feverish to establish their identity in a world so subject to change at any moment. It is this prominence, this vow to make an impact in the world that truly defines our societal roles. As an individual, one must make the conscious decision to influence society, but society will always influence them, regardless of whether they want it to or not.

            Being as infatuated with Japan as I am, one thing that absolutely mystifies me about Japanese culture is their innate ability to accept conformity and act for the sake of bettering society. It’s quite unlike American culture; everything there is done for purposes of hospitality and general wellness, while everything here is done more for individual gain and achievement. So, when you stick two people from these cultures together, the results would be something like “Don’t do that, you’ll stand out!” and a response of “But why? It’s okay to be yourself!” Roles are changed simply by placing the two in different societies, and there’s a rift that truly influences who we are, brought out just by bringing those two together. Geography really is destiny, huh?

            When I think of the future, I feel somewhat terrified. There’s this feeling of angst, like I’m not going to be able to get my grades up to go to college, and then there’s guilt, like all the hours I’ve spent not studying have suddenly come back to haunt me. And it’s true that the world may be my “oyster,” but I don’t know if I’m ready to be a pearl. Or even open the shell for that matter. Reading something like Nickel and Dimed didn’t exactly calm my nerves either, seeing Ehrenreich struggle working until tedious hours of the day only to just barely make rent. At points I even felt unmotivated for her, watching her struggle through surviving on minimum wage; which for many people is supposed to cover “basic living costs” (and we all see how that goes). Somehow, the individual ends up “paying the price” (Ehrenreich, 27) while working commendably and once again society has taken its toll.

            Being constantly surrounded by success stories can either be very uplifting or very discouraging. Whether it’s the “I lost 50 pounds and so can you!” advertisements plastered on billboards or “Sign up for the military today, make a difference!” brochures scattered around the streets, there is something to be said about an individual’s choice to make an impact on the world. But whether or not society’s influence affects you is not your choice. Geography is a key factor in destiny, and it’s considerable that society is as well.

           

Kavita Krishnan Speech Rhetorical Analysis Outline

Rhetorical Analysis Outline of Kavita Krishnan’s Rape Culture Speech

Speaker: Kavita Krishnan, Indian citizen, Secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association, anti-rape culture

Occasion: Reaction to Sheila Dikshit’s statement on gangrape incident and rape culture in India generally

Audience: Women in India, the government officials, Men in India

Purpose: To identify the problems with today’s society and its condoning of rape culture; to challenge the government officials who don’t take proper action against rape; to call to action the women of India and empower them

Section 1 - Introduction and Broadening the Topic

Purpose: To call attention to the wrongfulness of Sheila Dikshit’s statement; to realize that the gangrape incident is not a one time thing, and that it happens everyday with little to no action being taken; to realize that India has created such a society that women are not allowed to be real individuals

Appeals: Builds her own ethos by crushing Dikshit’s; pathos with her angered statements - “Don’t you dare tell us how to dress!”

Technique: addressing the counter argument, then strong reasons as to why that’s wrong; bold statements and repetition - “We will be reckless. We will be rash.”

Effectiveness: Very effective, she sets the stage for her argument with an empowering, yet angered tone - brings the issue into context

Section 2 - “How can the police do anything about rape?” Neeraj Kumar’s statements

Purpose: To call attention once more to what Neeraj Kumar, a police commissioner, has said about rape, and once again explain why it is wrong; to criticize the current legal system’s treatment of rape

Appeals: Ethos - tearing down the officials’ ethos and building her own; logos with the rhetorical question - “is this a crime for women?” and explanation of the system dealing with rape; pathos with “We do not want to hear this…”, very inclusive in her arguments

Technique: Using what the officials have said to build her own argument, repetition of the word “we,” including women, same structure as introduction and broadening, makes a claim at the end: “Freedom without fear is what we need to protect, to guard and respect.”

Effectiveness: Extremely effective, invokes a sense of frustration and tiredness of being complicit within the reader - makes you realize that the legal system is failing and allowing rape culture to be a thing

Section 3 - Breaking Down Rape Culture in India

Purpose: To call attention to the rape culture that has grown to be acceptable in India’s modern society; to shame the government for their wrongdoings; to challenge the morals that rape culture promotes

Appeals: pathos - women are fighting against rape and sexual assault every single day, and society has only been contributing to the problem rather than trying to solve it

lots of logos

• “This machismo is not any solution to the problem of violence against women.”
• “If the conviction rate for rapists is low, how can death penalty be the solution to the crime?”

Techniques: using tone to build up emotion in the reader - “Do not live by your freedom, and this means you are safe...We reject this entire notion. We don’t want it.”; asking rhetorical questions “is he not playing the role of a male protector too?”; diction + tone makes her argument challenge the govt.; bringing up “bekhauf azaadi,” the term for freedom to live without fear

Effectiveness: Once again, very effective - it’s easy to see that she’s extremely frustrated and angered by the suffering most if not all women go through in India and she wants them to take a stand against it; she’s mocking the government’s complicitness with rape culture

Section 4 - Demanding Action + Change

Purpose: To call the government and especially Indian women to action; to change legislations, to get proper justice for rape cases, to rid society of disgusting rape culture

Appeals: Pathos in diction and tone - very demanding - “just shedding a few crocodile tears within the confines of the Parliament is not enough.”

logos in arguing for mixing politics and rape - “we need to politicise the issue of violence against women, find out what women are saying about what is being done to them.”

Techniques: sentence variety - goes back and forth between “we need to…” and then facts, or reasoning

        addressing the future situation - change will not happen immediately, they’re waiting outside with water cannons, but “our rage will not be washed away with water cannons, or beaten out of us with sticks.”

        ending statement is very powerful, diction sets up the tone - “the government are defending rapists, and now they’re attacking those fighting for the rights of women”

Effectiveness: An extremely powerful ending; her argument has done a great job building up to the end. The use and repetition of the “we” makes Kavita a symbol for Indian women fighting against sexual abuse, she becomes their voice and fights for them. She skillfully uses her words in a way to not sound like a giant complaint or rant, but the voice of a woman who is tired of seeing injustices committed and needs to take a stand.

Thoreau vs. Machiavelli

Thoreau and Machiavelli both have very interesting perceptions and beliefs in the government, and both have inspired great speeches from brilliant leaders. Although they both sit drastically on each end of the spectrum, there are still certain parts where their thinking overlaps with each other's.

Thoreau and Machiavelli both are discussing the same issue: governing. Except, Thoreau talks about how the government should run itself from a citizen's perspective; Machiavelli talks about how it should be run from a prince's perspective. Thoreau goes into depth talking about his time in jail, and the role of an individual in their society according to the government. He holds a bit more of an optimistic view towards change and believes in a very moral system. If we just lessened governmental power and people relied on their morals more, he would be happy. However, Machiavelli promotes a harsher rule and believes that a prince has to keep his people at a distance. He has to know how to use both his words and his force to get his point across.

The difference between the two can really be shown in the emphasis of morality. Thoreau believes that the ends should not justify the means, but the means should justify the end, meaning all the actions you take should be more important than the outcome. This is elaborated in his explanation of his time in jail, and the reason that he ended up there: he did not pay his taxes. Machiavelli, on the other hand, thinks that a prince should be able to do what he wants as long as the end result is alright. He doesn't necessarily have to have the moral justification to do so if he thinks something is right. As long as people believe you are powerful and just, you're set.

Although Thoreau and Machiavelli do take different stances on the issue, both are valid and set the stage for many following ideas concerning government. According to them, you can either step back and let the people have the power, or you make sure you're the one that always has it.