Satire Project Reflection : 3/28

     My group decided to focus on the problem of being fashion obsessed. This topic is important to me because as a teenager, I am more susceptible to the idea of wanting to fit in, compared to those that may be younger than I am. I also tend to go to the city very often and it always intrigued me about why people decide to stand in those long lines for new fashion products to be released. I mean, it will eventually be on the internet, right? This problem still exists in society because of the media. The media plays a vital role in discussing what products are “trendy” and which ones are not. They also focus more on the name brands and those affiliated with celebrities. For example, if paparazzi take picture of a celebrity wearing a name brand, those that look up to them may also want to look “cool.”

     I think that our news report address this issue in a unique way. In our skit, 4 teens are in line for the new release of clothing from a famous brand, Supreme. While they are waiting on line, a celebrity walks past them, wearing a plain white t-shirt. The teens then start obsessing over the t-shirt. If the person that walked by was not a celebrity, then the teens would not be asking her questions about it. After all, it is just a simple, plain white t-shirt. This shows that teens will go to extents to try to fit in in society. For this project, all of us in the group worked on the script together. We worked on it inside and outside of school, using the time we were given in class and contacting each other outside of the classroom. Each of us worked on a separate paragraph for the group analysis paper. I worked on the conclusion and edited the paper to make sure that everything made sense. This included checking on grammar, spelling and flow of sentences.

Individual appraisals:

Benjamin: He gave ideas on how he wanted our script to be. Ideas were provided since day one of the project and that allowed the group to work at a fast pace on the script.

Christi: She gave a very vivid description of how should would be dressed the day that we presented. Therefore, it was easy to write her lines.

Saira: She gave input on how we could improve the sentence structure for some lines.

Malaika: She was able to get creative with her lines. She added character for her role in the play, allowing for comedy to be presented.

Christine: She emphasized the fact that we should talk like how teenagers talk today—slang and all. She also gave input on how we could add lines between some speaking parts to make it sound funnier. 

Satire Project Checkpoint : 3/19

     Before leaving class last week, my group members and I had a general idea of what our script would be like. We came up with roles in the script, leading to a discrepancy about who was going to play each role, as they all sounded like roles that we each wanted to have. This past week, we finalized roles and began to write the script. In addition, we discussed if we wanted to film this prior to presenting or present in class.

Reflection on this week's topic of words : 3/3

     Words for the basis of our everyday lives. Whether it is said in a different language that you may not be use to, we use words to communicate with one another. However, we use words in different ways. We use direct and indirect speech to talk with one another. When we use direct speech, we are in essence speaking what we literally mean. On the other hand, indirect speech consists of phrases that we don't really mean. For example, when one says "Can you please pick up my pen?", we are technically indirectly telling them "Pick up my pen." However, by using indirect speech, it sounds nicer and more polite. In the text "Word's Don't Mean What They Mean", Pinker uses the phrase "We're counting on you to show leadership." This is an indirect form of speech. The phrase still emphasizes the fact that one hopes that you can show what a real leader is like but by not giving a command, it lessens the attitude. This helps transition into "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz.

     Luntz's text speaks of the words that we should and should not use. In a sense, he is simply stating that we should use "less severe" terms to describe something. However, the way that he describes it is not the same as a euphemism. Euphemisms are words that are used to replace a "harsh" word. The terms that Luntz uses are not necessarily euphemisms. For example, he states to use "illegal immigrants" instead of the term "undocumented workers/aliens." The term "illegal immigrants", however, gives an even more negative connotation than the term "undocumented workers/aliens." The word "illegal" is what makes the entire "illegal immigrant" term to cause disgust. One rhetorical technique that Luntz uses to help convey his message is ethos. He is a political consultant that specializes in the use of polling and focus groups to effectively shape messages. This helps establish the fact that he knows what he is talking about. He also carefully directs who his audience is. His audience are the spouses of the Congress members. This allows the spouses to tell their spouses what is expected of them. People usually tend to listen to their spouses more, in hopes to make them happy, than someone else that may be telling them to do the same exact action. He also relates a part of his text back to real life situations, as he states that on CNN, the network founder forbade the use of the word "foreign." This shows how language, more specifically, words, can make or break the popularity of a television station. 

     Words and their connotations are things that we encounter on a daily basis. As humans, we tend to sugarcoat things. If your friend ask you how they look today, you may say yes, regardless of if they have messy hair or not. The words that we use are based off of our audience and how sensitive they are. Obviously, if we are talking to close friends, we won't want to say something harsh to ruin the friendship. This idea also incorporates large groups. For example, if a politician told a small group that they are in danger, the small group will panic within themselves and will try to relieve the situation. However, if the politician told a larger group of hundreds of people that they are in danger, it will cause mass hysteria. 

Reflection on Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" : 2/4

     In Orwell's text "Politics and the English Language", he discusses dying metaphors and how language is incorrectly used in politics. A technique that he seems to use is satire. Satire is the use of humor, irony or exaggeration to expose one's position on a topic. In class, we labeled several paragraphs as paragraphs 1 to 5. In paragraph 1, he states "A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine." In my opinion, this is ironic and humorous. This is ironic because one would expect a politician to be unique in their wording. According to Orwell, however, this is not the case. This is also humorous because he ridicules officials that just "copy each other." He indirectly states that they have no sense of creativity; if they did, then they would not have to be copying each other. He says "The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved." This suggests that politicians tend to say what they think might impress their audience. This can be done through using sophisticated wording. The use of satire is effective in his piece because it allows the reader to connect with him.
     Orwell also mentions the use of dying metaphors. They are cliches. At times, cliches are used out of context and end up changing the meaning of a phrase. A text to world connection can be made with dying metaphors. In today's day, people tend to say "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less." This is an example of a dying metaphor because it has been misused so often that the wrong form seems to now be the correct form. Another text to world connection can be made. Orwell states that "language merely reflects existing social situations." This is true. Today, we don't talk like how people did in the 1900s. We often talk like how those around is talk. We are influenced by our families, friends and what we see online.

Reflection on "Diversity Makes You Brighter" : 1/14

     Of all the sources that were examined this week about the different views of affirmative action, the one that interested me the most "Diversity Makes You Brighter" by Sheen S. Levine. The article included scientific data to show that diversity does improve cognitive thinking among a group of people. He also used information provided by current events such as the case with Abigail Fisher. This allows the audience to connect with him; there are still issues pertaining to race today. The title has the word "diversity" in it, which can lead to a negative connotation. However, by providing an article about a study, it allows the audience to understand the author from a scientific point of view.
     The article stated that those who worked in diverse groups had answers that were 58% more accurate than those who worked in homogeneous groups. Homogeneous groups come from the same culture in most cases. In the study, groups that were homogeneous tended to feed off of each other in a negative way; there were not different methods of approaching a question in a different way. This can be connected to the world around us. In groups that we are more familiar with, we tend to keep to ourselves and listen to other people contribute their ideas. On the other hand, when we are introduced to new people, we want to get our point across, to make our voice heard. Therefore, we voice our opinions which can result in applying it to situations that require analytical thinking. The article states "Ethnic diversity is like fresh air: It benefits everybody who experiences it." On a personal level, I can connect with this. I generally work better in diverse groups. Although ideas may clash, it allows me to learn from others, as the article has suggested about the diverse group of participants.

Reflection on "There is No Unmarked Woman" : 12/16

     There are many stereotypes placed upon women in today's society. According to Deborah Tannen's piece, "There is No Unmarked Woman", this was also apparent stereotypes placed upon women in the past. Tannen describes the time she went to a conference and how all the women seemed distinctly different from each other. The men, however, all seemed to look uniform. Tannen relates the idea of making decisions about hair, clothing and makeup as being marked. To me, the phrase "there is no unmarked woman", means that a woman have to complete actions that will help her become "accepted" into society, not generally to help please themselves.
     Tannen talks about titles such as "Ms.", "Miss." and "Mrs." These three titles are marked. Men only have the title "Mr.". Tannen believes that women's titles make them tell stoires about their lives. Personally, I agree with her. Why should one be judged based on what their title is? Will it make a difference in obtaining a job position? When filling out college applications, their asked for my title. This made me feel insecure in a way. Why do they need to know my title? I'm only a student. Tannen also states "If a woman's clothing is tight or revealing, it sends a message - an intended one of wanting to be attractive, but also a possibly untended one of availability." This can be connected to others around the world. Why does tight clothing have to be associated with "asking for it"? This goes to show how women can be judged for everything they wear. Clothing is something that is very personal and can be a source of expression. With judgement, however, they are limited in the ways that they can express themselves.
     An appeal to ethos is present in Tannen's piece. She refers to Ralph Fasold's book, The Sociolinguistics of Language. His book talks about how women are treated unfairly due to the language and culture that they are exposed to. She also appeals to pathos. Tannen seems to talk about how society treats women more than how they are praised by society. This is done in hopes of creating a sense of sympathy among readers.

Reflection on Pillow Angel Ethics : 12/2/16

     Does everyone have the right to make decisions for themselves? This is the question at hand in "Pillow Angel Ethics", where a bran-damaged girl, Ashley, has her health decisions made by her parents. This article seemingly has a profound impact on the disabled community, claiming that it is not morally correct to rid one of their dignity by making someone undergo an untested treatment. Although the author doesn't specifically state her point of view on this issue, she writes about more people that disapprove of the occurrences. She is able to prove her point by stating quotes by other people. Those that are disability advocates have strong feelings about this issue. They stated "... Ashley was not sick, and the treatment was untested... that's not healing, it's gambling." This also creates a sense of pathos by using effective diction. The word "gambling" creates a negative connotation. In this sense, it makes it seem like Ashley's parents are playing with her life-as if there is a chance for trial and error. 

     This text can definitely be connected to those around the world. If one is in the same situation that Ashley's parents were in, they can benefit from this article. They can benefit by either incorporating the same procedures that her parents used or completely disregard the procedures and look at them with disgust; they learn what to do or what not to do. Another way that it can be connected with the world is if people do agree with the parent's decisions. A doctor stated in the article that some people "...don't have the money for a personal aide a home." Assuming that Ashley's parents have to pay for the medical expenses, they have to work in order to make money. This money may not be enough to hire a personal aide at home to watch over their daughter. Others around the world may be able to connect to this on a personal level.