Update on Satirical Project

Organized ideas:

Topic: Social media

Problem: Obsession with social networking sites

Solution: An app or social networking site called “Real Talk” where people can make friends

That's what makes it ironic

Techniques: Incongruity(Irony), Inversion, Ridicule

Roles:

News Reporters: Introduce topic, problem and solution

Experts: Discuss how “effective” the app is and is going viral

Consumers: Demonstrate and play out the “effectiveness” of the app

Words That Work by Frank Luntz

As a words man, Frank Luntz states when writing or speaking the goal is to get the message across. Effective communication requires one to say or not say specific words. The words are dependent on the connotations. For instance, the linguistic difference between “alien” and “illegal immigrants”, "alien" has a negative connotation because it implies that someone is different or strange. Whereas, "illegal immigrants" is in regards to security issues of a person who doesn't have the correct paperwork. The word "alien" is aimed at a person, while the word "illegal immigrants" is aimed at the idea. Thus, leading Luntz to his conclusion of why "illegal immigrants" is more appropriate to say than "alien". It is known that these two words have the same denotation but different connotation. The same concept is applied to other words such as “foreign trade” and “international trade”. Similarly, the word "foreign" implies something different and seclusive(I); whereas, the word international has an inclusive(we) connotation. Once again, these two terms have the same meaning but Lunts develops a terminology that some phrases have a negative connotation in comparison to others. Lastly, Luntz does a job that identifies why one should or should not use certain words due to their connotation. 

The Bad English Language

George Orwell puts forth that the English language is used in a variety of incorrect manners. He states common mistakes such as dying metaphors, verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless words. For instance, verbal false limbs is the inclusion of clutter. It makes it difficult to pinpoint verbs and nouns and causes a lack of symmetry. Not only does he point out flaws in a writer’s writing, but also he points out what should or should not be done. In this case, Orwell suggests that keeping the idea simple is important as getting straight to the point. He claims to avoid the use of unfamiliar words, don't try too hard sound sophisticated otherwise, the message would be unclear, use active voice in place of passive voice, and if it's possible to cut out a word, cut it out.
This specifically applies to political speeches and writing; some ways bad language is applied: defending the indefensible, covering up lies, and the influence of language on thought (vice versa). Orwell provides an example of how defending the indefensible is used; he states “Consider for instance some comfortable English teacher defending totalitarianism. He can not outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Therefore, he will say something like this: ...we must agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition”, this goes far to show how words can be twisted to defend the wrong, totalitarianism.  
In other means, politicians use similar tactics when presenting their ideas to the population. Donald trump is guilty of using vague and unprofessional language, “It’s gonna be great” or “In the near future”. However, bad language isn't only limited to politicians because it's implemented into our daily conversations. The saying “You are what you eat” goes hand in hand with “You write how you speak”. Students sample essays have shown an excessive use of clutter; they overemphasize with many transition words. All in all, nothing is perfect. Orwell is making an attempt to improve writing not perfect it.

Why Affirmative Action no longer works

Affirmative Action refers to providing equal access to education for groups that have been historically excluded. Today, people are more divided by income and social classes rather than race. For this reason, Affirmative Action would be irrelevant to take into account. I agree that it's a pleasant idea to make up for the mistakes of the past, but by dwelling in the past one can make the same mistakes. In the past, African Americans, a minority group were mistreated and frowned upon. Through Affirmative Action, they would have more privileges. On the other hand, that deprives the whites of opportunities. To use Affirmative Action in the most appropriate manner, everyone should be given the same terms. For instance, when taking a sat exam, provide everyone with the same prep program. (Ngayu put forth this idea) Without these considerations, a person in a higher social class might be at an advantage when affording prep programs. Whereas a person in a lower class, won't be able to afford such programs. As stated before, African Americans were pushed around, just by putting them first doesn't erase the past, David Frum says, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race”(Lines 9-10) One can’t make assumptions that African Americans would be pleased with the system because they may feel pitied.  

Another case can be eliminating the use of Affirmative Action. A person performance isn't determined by the color of their skin. It's similar to saying, “Don't judge a book by its cover” because someone's ability to do a task shouldn't be labeled by skin color. Affirmative action serves no justice when people are being judged by race, ethnicity, national origin, and sex “Affirmative action has severed its connection to the deepest wrong in American history and effloresced into a system whereby citizens are bestowed or denied preferences or benefits according to a complex hierarchy of race”(lines 30-34). Frum expands by stating, factors besides characteristics shouldn’t be considered when deciding life choices such as colleges and jobs.

  Lastly, the use of Affirmative Action can diminish over time because the rate of intermarriages has increased, “ one in six Americans now marries a person outside hit or her own ethnicity race”, as the number of intermarriage increase, the use of Affirmative Action can slowly diminish. This can prove Affirmative Action to be a difficult task to accomplish with everyone being so distinct.

Hearing Skin Color: The connections between Language and Race

The denotation of the word “Race” is a group of people distinguished from one another by physical characteristics, such as hair type, eye color, and skin color. However, human beings are collectively more than just faces. The author of “Hearing Skin Color: The connections between Language and Race,” Nic Subtirelu discusses that people should be assigned to races through language and not physical characteristics. For example, Subtirelu puts forth an experiment that requires listeners to identify the speaker’s race based on their accents, “ Participants were exposed to only the word “hello” and asked to decide what the speaker’s race was. Participants were surprisingly accurate at judging the race of the speaker based only on the word “hello” (lines 20-24 ). In the study, the listeners were particularly correct at judging the race of the speaker of the same color without being shown their appearances. It suggests that listening to words is more precise to appointing people to race. Whereas appearances, blacks would’ve been placed under one category, instead of searching in depth to their origin.

Subtirelu presented another example of how the idea is placed in cartoon characters as well. For instance, the 1994 Lion King Film categorized on the basis of language, “Fairly clear lines are drawn using language between the positive lion characters (for example, Simba and Nala) and the villains (Scar and the hyenas). In particular, the positive characters use ‘standard’ US English (even in cases where they are voiced by African Americans like James Earl Jones)” (Lines 70-73). All the characters are voiced by African Americans, however, the positive characters use standard English. In contrast, the negative characters voices are more diverse. This shows that appearances can be deceiving, a person can look African American but doesn’t have to be. To further emphasize, stereotyping a race on color can take away the existing diversity in the group. Organizing people through language is more specific and accurate, unlike organizing by appearances.

A researcher needs to be aware that the language someone speaks is not determined by genetics. Critics need to be mindful racial profiling isn’t preferences for a particular language but preferences for a particular racial category. As well, people need to be conscious of how the voices are used because it can lead to racial stereotyping. In The Lion King film, hearing voices associated with certain characters can trigger young children's mindset to believe a voice fits a character. In a child’s mind, a harsh grumpy voice would indicate an evil character. Therefore, it’s important to be cautious of carrying out such an experiment. In all, language (not appearances) should be a factor in determining which race category someone belongs to.

https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/09/08/hearing-skin-color-the-connections-between-language-and-race/

There Is No Unmarked Woman by Deborah Tannen

Deborah Tannen, the author of “There Is No Unmarked Woman,” argues that no woman is unmarked or labeled. Before she precedes with her argument, she gives a description by generalizing women to certain beauty standards. For instance, the sophisticated style that women are ought to carry out through history is demonstrated when she states, “ One woman had dark brown hair in a classic style...the second woman was older, full of dignity and composure...the third woman’s hair was wild, a frosted blond avalanche falling over beyond her shoulders” (Lines 6-20). The sentences begin with discussing the women’s hair it implies that women are cautious of their hair, in particular, their looks. The stereotype image that society carries about marked women: Feeble, unathletic, self-absorbed, unintelligent, makeup expertise, and incapable of doing what a man can do. By giving a description, Tannen has a foundation to build her argument, and it shows an understanding of the situation.

Marked is referred to adding a linguistic term to the base of a word. In essence, the word "see" has the same meaning as "saw" and "will see". Considering that fact, Tannen interprets that gender basing words changes its connotation, as shown in, “The unmarked forms of most English words also convey ‘male’. Being male is an unmarked case. Endings like -ess and -ette mark words as ‘female’...Unfortunately, they also tend to mark them for frivolousness” (Lines 55-58) She puts forth that a word such as actor implies it being male, by adding -ess making it actress, feminizes it. One had to mark the word with -ess for it to be applied to a woman. Furthermore, gender markers add different meanings. An actor and actress both have the same definition, a person who plays the role of another character. However, with actress it picks up that a woman is not quite serious about her job and more concerned with clothing, accessories, and makeup. Although some women today won’t take notice of it, the idea of it still lingers. For example, whereas men are only 'Mr', women are either 'Ms, Miss, or Mrs'.

In such a manner, women are created from the image that society has built for them. It’s a woman’s decision to uphold these standards, ignore, or fight for them. Personally, I don’t take into account what others say, it’s their own opinion. At this moment, if a person still believes that a woman doesn’t deserve rights, equal pay as men, are weak, and emotionally incapable of dealing with a crisis that makes them ignorant. I won’t waste my time or words on an absent minded fool that refuses to cooperate due to their arrogant personality. In all, once we realize that individuals don’t fall into certain stereotype groups, then it begins to fall apart.

Pillow Angel

Ashley, a six-year old girl, with brain damage was kept small on her parent’s orders to make her more portable in the future. In doing so, unethical procedures were carried out but with a right mindset. I’m indecisive on whether this was an appropriate decision. In the parent’s point of view, it was in their best interest for their daughter to be happy. While in the public’s eye, including other ill patients and parents it was perceived as a horrific surgery.

A doctor’s oath is to cure patients. In Ashley’s case, her conditions couldn’t be cured. However, the doctors took a different approach, by comforting her. As a result, doctors removed anything that would cause discomfort as stated in, “removed her uterus to prevent potential discomfort from menstrual cramps or pregnancy in the event of rape; and also her breast tissue” (Lines 16-17). Not only did her parents decide to keep her small, but remove any of which Ashley probably needs to feel feminine. The doctors were canceling out the risks of any long-term effects of the surgery, but this raises a question, did Ashley’s parents thoroughly think of her social and emotional life besides physical?

Ashley’s story raised many controversies in public because it violated her human rights. Many disabled people felt strongly because her brain isn't able to function completely, that doesn’t qualify her to be toyed around with. She’s still human, and that makes her no different that those who are able to function without any effort. It was considered unethical to perform the previously mentioned procedure at the age of six because her brain can develop as well as medicine can improve.

Although the choice of Ashley’s parents was frowned upon, they claimed it wasn’t a difficult decision for them if it guaranteed Ashley’s safety. Her parents stated, “makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips” (Lines 11-13) stressing that the treatment was to improve the quality of Ashley's life. Furthermore, they believed she would be easier to handle. At this point, treating Ashley is an acceptable intention. Yet, a recurring question is: Were her parents making excuses and were aiming to make their own life simpler, whilst saving them the trouble of taking care of a grown ill child? Additionally proven in, "I think in the end it was the obvious bond and love that exists between Ashley and her parents," Gunther says, "that convinced them this was the right thing to do." (Lines 69-70), this presents that Ashley’s parents have deemed the surgery to be carried out. As well as, no other comprehends the situation better than them, parents and the child connection. Thus, no one else should interfere.