Janae’s Blog

In essence, Twain is stating that while people claim freedom they are not really free. They are bound to the social norms and practices of the majority. If they are to succeed in life they are to succeed how they are told to succeed. Men are free when the fit into the mold of the masses. If they choose not to, they will endure negative consequences both socially and in their pursuits of success.

            Twain qualifies his own argument by initially stating that it is a “black philosopher’s idea”. He lived during a time where although Black people technically were free, they certainly were not treated as equals. If a black person wanted a peaceful successful life they had better go along with the pre-set expectations and not stir the waters. They couldn’t pursue certain career paths and they couldn’t speak out about the inequality unless they wanted to face limitless persecution. So from the perspective of a Black person living during the era that Twain did, then yes the argument that people claim freedom but in reality are limited in their freedoms is true.

Even now, to an extent, going against social norms poses difficulties and unpleasant consequences however, there are many different social groups that have their own ‘rules’ to follow, so there are more opportunities for people to find a social norm they want to follow. Tolerance levels have expanded since then. It is the politically correct, and therefore the expectation and norm, for people to be accepting of different opinions and ideas and embrace them.

There is encouragement for being open-minded, and many people claim that they are. But claiming to be and actually practicing it are two very different things. As a whole, America is a country that says they want change, they want improvement and they accept and embrace everyone and are willing to listen to their new ideas, yet there are still prejudices against certain races and people that choose lifestyles that deviate from the norm. People generally listen to ideas but don’t act on those ideas.  Society is still limited in how far they are willing to stretch themselves in order to embrace new ideas. It has taken over a hundred years for Blacks to be able to claim equality, and we are still not completely there. Twain’s argument was appropriate for his time, and while his argument still holds true today, the severity of the context had greatly lessened.

2.  The male villain is portrayed as the dumb one. He is mostly physically described, as the playful and not serious one. The language used to describe him is coarser than what was used to describe the female. It suggests that females are displayed as the powerful one who manipulates and controls her male counterpart. Females are powerful and the intelligent ones, and males are the arm ornament.

3. After the initial descriptions in the first two paragraphs, Denby looses the playful descriptive tone and gains a more explanatory tone and introduces his argument, and develops a serious tone in companion with his playful sarcastic one.

4. The essay breaks because he really delves into the meat of his argument after his three paragraph introduction. It turns from intro into explanatory and he begins developing and defending his argument.

5. His essay answers the rhetorical questions by describing his opinion and supporting the fact that movies have created a reality that is our culture now, but qualifies his argument by stating that there are exceptions (of course) to the norm.

6. He established ethos and used it because he compared and analyzed a wide variety of films from different genres and different decades, yet they all supported whatever point he was trying to make.

7. His central argument is that movies have created and dictated a cultural norm for high schools. He also sets up the argument the cliché popular kids don’t succeed and that the geeks do, however he argues that much of the high school stereotype persona is a result of media influence over the years.

9. Denby ties that the “wounded” child typically gains artistic achievement and success because the movies depict their childhood stereotypical tormentor as ‘loser’ at the end of a novel, movie, etc. and the geeky picked upon child gains popularity and success. They control the media that is shown to children, and turn the tables on those who hurt them.

10. By saying the Columbine students who ended up killing teachers and students didn’t learn the lesson the geeks rule, he solidifies his argument over the power and control that movies have over people. Obviously those students had not watched enough movies to learn such an important life lesson.

11. The examples that go beyond genre bolsters his argument because it adds the layer of complexity to the issue, and that it is not cut and dry and black and white however, movies still have a huge impact on the behavior of students.

12. The most likely audience is high school students because it applies to them and appeals to them. Denby considers his audience because he uses examples and language and writing styles that appeal to younger audiences and that the younger audience can relate too. 

The main claim in Kirn’s article is that multitasking is ineffective and negatively affecting our society, and that multitasking has increased with the advancement od technology.  

The first section’s claim is that cell phones have contributed to this newfound need of multitasking.

The second section Kirn claims that “The Multitasking Crash” is inevitable; meaning that the era of insane busyness will catch up with the people of America.

The third section claims that computers were a major component in becoming a multitasking nation.

The fourth section claims that the society tends to focus in on something and idolized it, and base their lives around that something.

The fifth section’s claim is that people are caught up in the technology craze and want to help everybody else have the newest, fastest model, yet those people don’t recognize the consequences of multitasking.

The sixth section claims that there is a financial risk to multitasking because it is harder for CEO’s of larger companies to keep track of what all employees are doing. (for example, Enron)

The seventh section claims that the onslaught of technology has distracted people so that they forget what they’re doing when they’re multitasking, and can make costly mistakes.

The eighth section claims that people have become so absorbed in their own lives and finishing their ‘to do’ lists that they tend to forget simple communication skills.

All of Kirn’s sub-claims support his main claim because they all discuss in some aspect of how technology has affected multitasking, how it has affected people, and in general the negative consequences that result from multitasking.

The main claim in Kirn’s article is that multitasking is ineffective and negatively affecting our society, and that multitasking has increased with the advancement od technology.  

The first section’s claim is that cell phones have contributed to this newfound need of multitasking.

The second section Kirn claims that “The Multitasking Crash” is inevitable; meaning that the era of insane busyness will catch up with the people of America.

The third section claims that computers were a major component in becoming a multitasking nation.

The fourth section claims that the society tends to focus in on something and idolized it, and base their lives around that something.

The fifth section’s claim is that people are caught up in the technology craze and want to help everybody else have the newest, fastest model, yet those people don’t recognize the consequences of multitasking.

The sixth section claims that there is a financial risk to multitasking because it is harder for CEO’s of larger companies to keep track of what all employees are doing. (for example, Enron)

The seventh section claims that the onslaught of technology has distracted people so that they forget what they’re doing when they’re multitasking, and can make costly mistakes.

The eighth section claims that people have become so absorbed in their own lives and finishing their ‘to do’ lists that they tend to forget simple communication skills.

All of Kirn’s sub-claims support his main claim because they all discuss in some aspect of how technology has affected multitasking, how it has affected people, and in general the negative consequences that result from multitasking.

            Generally speaking, Susan Jacoby’s argument throughout her article “How dumb can we get?” is that people in America have progressively become dumber and they enjoy it. She explains “Dumbness…has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans’ rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science, and history; the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.” Jacoby want to illustrate her point that people are focused on technology, and concerned with furthering their “formal education” in that sense, yet have a bare minimum knowledge of basic simple studies. She also states: “Despite an aggressive marketing campaign aimed at encouraging babies as young as 6 months to watch videos, there is no evidence that focusing on a screen is anything but bad for infants and toddlers. Ina study released last August, University of Washington researchers found that babies between 8 and 16 months recognized an average of six to eight fewer words for every hour spent watching videos.” Again, Jacoby is pointing out that the demise of intellectualism in American culture is starting young and younger and can be pinpointed back to the watching of videos, moreover technology in general. Jacoby believes that the rampant spread of anti-intellectualism in America is a direct result of technology in society.

            Personally, I think that Jacoby is right because technology has, in a sense, ruined what our culture used to be, and what was supposed to aid us and be beneficial has turned into something of an intellectual horror show. I especially agree with the point that young children should not be ‘taught’ through television and videos and be constantly surrounded by technology 24/7. However, I do disagree with Jacoby because she takes the consequences of technology to the extreme level. I believe that technology has played the lead role in the downfall on intellectualism, but I also believe that there are other factors, and that here is ‘healthy’ technology out there. Furthermore, I do not believe Americans are proud and arrogant about their lack of intelligence, but are uncomfortable with it because it is so scarce, and therefore do not know how to respond to intelligent and intellectual stimulation. I do believe that anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism is widespread throughout America and that technology, videos especially, have played a part, but I do not believe that the majority of American’s population is knowingly arrogant about that fact.