The Use of Religion in Television

In one of the chapters of Amusing Ourselves to Death,"Shuffle off to Bethlehem", Postman speaks on the topic of the representation of religion in television. He claims that televised religion can be considered heretical and lacks the spiritual environment present in sacred places of worship. Furthermore, the core of religion is lost in translation when converted to television as it is impacted by the idea that television, no matter the subject, should be entertaining. Postman also states that a sense of secularism can be felt as viewers are constantly aware that they can easily change the television channel and once again be exposed to the secular world. I think this topic is relevant now since the pandemic has caused churches among other places to close. Consequently, people pertaining to different religions may have turned to televised religious shows or utilized other mediums of technology to continue to be involved in religious affairs. 

This has caused me to think more about the different arguments regarding televised religion. Is televised religion ethically moral? Are all televised religion shows intended to be entertaining? Does the use of television as the medium for religion undermine its sacredness? However, is it possible that televised religion can be positive in the sense that it can attract a greater following? Can it make more people interested in religion if they weren't before?

The Responsibility of Technology Companies

    In the Room for Debate article "Apple's Corporate Responsibilty for Distracted Driving", an argument arises about whether Apple should be sued for creating technology that creates distractions while driving. On the one side, Mangu-Ward argues that Apple should be sued because their systems to stop distracted driving can be easily turned off and that all technology comes with bad. On the other hand, Mars states that Apple should not be sued becuase they do not control human choices and even if their blocking systems can be easily turned off, they are near-perfect when turned on. 

    While reading this article, I thought whether technology companies should be held accountable for the bad things that occur on the Internet, like cyberbullying. Even though these companies do not control human choices and try to put up blockers, they provide the opportunity for us to do bad things on the internet as well as have a huge influence on us. So, my question to all of you is should technology companies have responsibility over the technology they create and the bad that goes on in social media and the Internet? If so, is this a big responsibilty or a little one? Also if so, are technology companies doing enough to keep their technology in check? Should they be held accountable for human actions over the Internet?

Capital Exploitation vs. Cultural Appreciation

Celebrities, brands, and other influencers have a platform where their decisions are often scrutinized, and many of them have come under fire for cultural appropriation. Examples of such grievances include Coachella attendees wearing Native American dress or headwear for the aesthetic, fashion brands capitalizing off of sacred cultural clothing, or non-POC celebrities wearing common hairstyles from the black community (therein lies another problem of praise or idolization from the media for ‘trend-setting’). In this Room for Debate article, “Whose Culture Is It, Anyhow?”, debaters redefine the line between cultural appropriation vs. cultural adoration or the lack thereof.

Debater Adrienne Keene shares the harmful ramifications of “cultural sharing” as she speaks from the Native American perspective. She says the headdresses used for supposed “aesthetics” have powerful meanings in their culture, yet the symbol of dignity is lost in translation by non-native users. She agrees that different cultures shouldn’t be a taboo for commercial brands or celebrities, rather there should be a collaborative effort in order to maintain respect for the culture. Debater Jamia Wilson agrees that the historical/political context must be taken into consideration. She notes the distinct difference between appropriation vs. appreciation: the latter being a way to admire different cultural symbols and the former being the usage of traditions for “fetish, profit, or social capital”.

On the other hand, Laia Garcia and John McWhorter both agree that the adoption of different cultural aspects is inevitable if we want to break social stigmas and stereotypes of different groups. Garcia is diligent in pointing out that letting go of barriers that divide will promote communal progress. McWhorter agrees that a valid argument against cultural appropriation is “that to mimic an oppressed group’s gestures is wrong because you haven’t suffered their oppression”, however, he believes that mannerisms or fashion from different communities should not be reduced to their response to oppression, rather it is a celebration of cultural diversity and beauty.

So ultimately, is cultural appropriation inevitable? Is there a way for us to find a middle ground between exploitation and appreciation? Or should elements of fashion, music, and the arts be restricted to use by only that respective culture?

School Reform

I came across the "Room for Debate" article labeled "Is School Reform Hopeless?" which discussed the differing views on how to approach school reform. Every debater seems to unanimously agree that school reform is necessary in order to provide the environment for underprivileged students to succeed. The conflicting views make it clear that reform is a complex issue that is much more deep rooted than the poor institutions themselves. The real problem lies within classist and racist ideologies that have been ingrained into every aspect of society. Children from families struggling with poverty, hunger, and violence are much less likely to be able to dedicate their attention towards their academics, as they struggle to make a living. Furthermore, children from impoverished communities have less access to a quality school environment, extracurricular activities, and tutoring; those from affluent communities who do have access to these things have much better opportunities to succeed. In order to combat this, a certain amount of money and consideration would have to be put forward. This brings up the question of how much money should be contributed towards school reform, and where should this money be invested? Should the government overlook these changes or should local leaders be given the initiative to make change? I personally believe that local leaders know what is best for their own communities and their decisions would suit their students' needs best; the government should find ways to provide the means for reform. I am interested in your outlook on the situation and what you believe would work best.

Are American journalists the worst journalists?

  A Room for Debate article I recently read was "Media in the Age of Trump", which focused on President Trump's actions towards journalists and American journalism as a whole. There were different opinions in the debate. Some argued that journalists should unite against attacks by Trump and other politicians to avoid being silenced. Others believe that journalists overreact to what Trump says because the news environment promotes whatever stirs excitement in Americans. This made me think of Neil Postman's arguments in Amusing Ourselves to Death. He argues that the media promotes irrelevant information for the purposes of entertainment. This has become a very relevant topic in recent times. I believe American culture has corrupted the integrity of journalists and newscasters to a point where they cannot be trusted. Journalists in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Mexico are actively putting their lives at risk to educate their people. It seems like conveying information as entertainment is an American characteristic. American culture favors journalists who entertain. Sensationalism is the prime form of journalism in America. So are American journalists and newscasters a reliable source of information? Are American journalists the worst journalists? Is the media to blame or are American people at fault for allowing this to happen? 

Social Media and the Fight for Social Justice

The Room for Debate article "Is Digital Connectedness Good or Bad for People?" focuses on the positives and negatives of digital connectedness. An argument presented by Noa G. Slaney, a proponent, piqued my interest. Slaney remarks on how online activism transforms the world. She utilizes the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge as an example. The Internet challenge raised over 115 million dollars. Digital connectedness has also created movements such as Lean In, which contended for ending gender inequality. The Internet has ostensibly created a new model of activism that advocates for social justice. Currently, the Black Lives Matter Movement has gained a vast deal of awareness. The Movement protests for equality for Black/African American people. The Movement exploded after the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. Due to digital connectedness, hundreds of accounts of injustices against Black/African American people have circulated. Positive actions are being taken by officials in response to digital connectedness, specifically social media. Governments have passed new laws and changed policies. Despite the outstanding actions that are finally being taken because of social platforms, some users are not content. Some users have asked for content creators to "return to normal." Amongst those people are people who choose to remain ignorant. Some Internet users have access to millions of resources, yet they choose to remain ignorant of social issues. They argue that social media should be a way to "get away" from the world. Others have used Internet platforms to fight against movements. Are these people justified in their comments and actions? Should content creators revert to their previous content despite there still being a lot to do? If the answers to the previous questions are no, what ways can society educate citizens on these matters?

Should the U.S. get a Capture-Carbon Plant to Combat Climate Change?

My choice for one of the free-pick “Room for Debates” articles was “Clean Coal, or a Dirty Shame.” I picked this article because it discussed a new capture-carbon plant that would basically take in carbon emissions from the air and store them in rock formations. This type of plant will prevent those emissions from getting trapped in the atmosphere, which creates global warming. However, there is much debate on whether or not the United States should continue building this plant. The pro-plant side argues that there are so many air pollutants and carbon emissions in the air caused by other plants that use fossil fuels as their source of energy. By having this plant, we can combat climate change, which is an issue that has been affecting our Earth for decades. However, the anti-plant side makes good claims for not building the plant. First, the plant costs 7 billion dollars to build and regulate, which is quite expensive, and the plant isn’t even finished yet. Second, the plant will release other air pollutants and cause harmful effects to our communities, such as ash ponds. Also, the corporations operating the carbon-capture plant will most likely sell the carbon dioxide back to oil companies to gain profits, allowing oil companies to extract more oil and release more carbon dioxide into the air. Finally, the process of storing the carbon dioxide in rock formations is yet to be proven safe, since there is only evidence that it is. 

Personally, I believe that the US shouldn’t build the capture-carbon plant. There are other efficient ways to prevent global warming and climate change, such as solar energy, wind energy, and geothermal energy. I would really like to know where you stand on this subject, so let’s discuss!

Should Kratom Be Legal?

A “Room for Debate” article I chose to read was about Kratom. Kratom, a plant largely grown in Thailand, is used as a euphoriant when used as a recreational drug or can also be used to lessen the symptoms of opiate withdrawal, cough, and high blood pressure, if used as a medicine. The United States Drug Enforcement Administrations reversed its decision to temporarily classify kratom’s chemical constituents in the same way as opiates. People argue if the drug is merely another form of an addiction or an alternative to an opiate withdrawal. In “Benefits of Kratom Are More Legitimate Than the Fears,” Marc T. Swogger and Elaine Hart write that Kratom has already become an alternative treatment for overcoming an opiate addiction; they state that the use of kratom was successful in effectively treating the addiction. Because there is no solid evidence of kratom being a dangerous drug, they believe that the D.E.A has insufficient reason to limit the use of kratom. In fact, they believe that criminalizing the drug would only do more harm, especially to those who will not go to treatment facilities because they would have less types of options for treatment and also, prison populations would rise as well. On the other hand, David Galbis-Reig, author of “There’s Too Much Risk of Danger for Kratom to Be Legal,” concludes that kratom should be banned until there is further research being done to determine if it does have the medical benefits people say it does. Since kratom’s main ingredient is mitragynine, which has both opioid and stimulant properties, it would be the same as just using one opioid instead of another. He expresses that in Thailand, 60 percent of its users have admitted to being addicted or abusing kratom. My take on this matter is that kratom should be banned or be labeled as Schedule 1 Controlled Substance because there isn’t any significant evidence to report that the use of kratom is safe. Further testing should be done to see if kratom actually does help addicts overcome their addiction or if it simply is another type of addictive drug. Do you believe Kratom should be legal? Why or why not? If so, what regulations do you believe should be placed?

Amusing Education

One of the chapters in Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman is “Teaching as an Amusing Activity”. In this chapter, Postman claims that televised education takes a more entertaining approach to learning. For example, the show Sesame Street consists of a variety of puppets who often engage in music while giving educational lessons. As a result, televised education has set the unrealistic expectation that learning should always be fun. Viewers of educational shows on TV compare visual learning with the learning in a classroom environment. Like other factors in television, this case also causes viewers to seek out entertainment. Postman states that televised learning lacks the complexity of standard education taught by real-life teachers. Although I agree with this statement, I think that the idea of having education being entertaining shouldn’t be entirely rejected. For example, I’m sure many of you have had experiences in school where you learned a concept or idea through a song. I recall learning about political documents and history through a catchy song which was not only more entertaining than simply reading it, but also facilitated memorization. Furthermore, I think incorporating entertaining elements to education would cause people to take more interest in what they are learning and actually participate, opposed to being bored and not paying attention. I am not proposing that education should ALWAYS be entertaining or that it should be required in schools, but there should at least be some entertaining material included in some cases.
However, I would like to know your perspective on this concept. Can learning which is carried out to be entertaining be more effective than standard education given at schools(Such as in retaining information)? Should teachers start to make changes on how they teach to accommodate to students' interests or preferences(To increase engagement in classroom activities)? Or, on the other hand, should teachers continue to educate students like they always have?

Are we truly in control of our relationship with technology?

"Why Silicon Valley can't fix itself" was the assigned Long Read which corresponded with my counselor Mrs. Young. In the beginning of the read it has discussed how there was rising in concerns to how technology has been negatively impacting society and those who use the products that come from the creators in Silicon Valley such as Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. At first, when these concerns began to rise on how addicting and time consuming the products from Silicon Valley combined with social media were, the companies of Silicon Valley claimed that these people making those concerns were ignorant of the benefits that come with technology. After years of denying these accusations, a suspicious turn in beliefs had occurred in which the companies had suddenly agreed that there were negative effects technology had on those who used it. To convince the people of their new beliefs and agreements, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, made the solution of converting the total time spent on Facebook into more meaningful time spent. To do so, Facebook had been programmed in such a way that it "prioritized “meaningful” interactions with “friends” rather than consuming “public content” like video and news. This would ensure that “Facebook isn’t just fun, but also good for people’s well-being”' and focused on the individual person. By focusing on the individual, it was able to track down how often they sent messages to people and whose post they liked, assuming that the individual was closer to those they messaged more rather than the people's who post they liked. This effectively allowed for Facebook to then become a data rich platform that knew what you liked and what your friends possibly liked, assuming closer friends shared similar interest. 

I found it amusing how companies such as Facebook had been able to manipulate people to use technology less, yet in a way that was benefiting them even more than it had before. When they learn what we take interest in and keep track of websites we visit, these companies are then able pinpoint what they should advertise to who and further gain more money and control from us."We should be demanding that society as a whole gets to decide how we live with technology - rather than the small group of people who have captured society's wealth". This quote from "Why Silicon Valley can't save itself" refers to companies who have originated from Silicon Valley such as Google, Apple, etc to be the ones who are truly in control of how we live with technology. Do you believe that to some extent, it's possible that these organizations have been able to control us and our relationship with technology through the use of their products? How often have you found in your social medias advertisements for things you like? Does feed based off of things you enjoy cause you to use the app longer?

Participation Trophies

       When children are young, parents often sign them up for activities: sports, dance, swim, etc. Usually at the end of the season, trophies are given out to these kids. In one of the "Room for Debates," people talk about whether participation trophies should be given out to kids when they participate in these extracurricular activities. I know that some people think that not giving out participation trophies lowers the child's self-esteem, but some say that they need to learn that losing is not the end of the world.
       Debater Ashley Merryman believes that if children receive a trophy, regardless of effort or achievement, we're teaching kids that losing is so terrible that we can never let it happen. She says that letting kids lose isn't about embarrassing them, rather "teaching them it can take a long time to get good at something, and that's all right". Other debaters also agree that it's through failure and mistakes that we learn the most, and focusing on process and progress is more important than results and rewards.
       Though this may be true, other debaters, like Parker Abate, believe that it is necessary to give kids the confidence they need by handing out these trophies. He gives us an example of how a not-so-talented fourteen year old will never be good enough to be on a competitive sports team and that by giving him a trophy, it makes him feel like he is a valuable member of the team. He also says that watching other peers get a trophy without getting one yourself is disappointing. Abate believes that we should do everything we can do to make the child feel like they are needed and wanted.
     
       Do you guys believe that giving children participation trophies gives them a boost of confidence or sets them up for disappointment later in life? Does age have anything to do with which kids should get a participation trophy, or should it be the same for all ages? Does the possibility of earning a trophy or an award help to motivate you? Did it affect how hard you tried?

Is President Trump justified in his accusations towards the media?

I recently came across an article regarding Trump’s reaction to Twitter fact-checking one of his tweets. This reminded me of the Room for Debate article “Media in the Age of Trump”, which focuses on the question of how the media should proceed in the future facing Trump’s antagonistic nature. Journalists had different perspectives on the situation, for example, Ann Cooper claimed journalists should unite and support each other. On the other hand, Bob Garfield suggested that it is a journalist’s duty to “document events, illuminate wrongdoing and, not least, warn our audiences of approaching peril”, and continue doing so regardless of Trump’s retaliation against the media. However, instead of having journalists change their methods in conveying media to the public, should Trump be the one to change? 

This brings me back to the article I mentioned earlier, called “The President Versus the Mods”. This article is about Donald Trump issuing an executive order against Twitter after the media company hid and placed a warning label on a tweet posted by the president. The tweet was promoting violence against looters during the Minneapolis protest, which violated Twitter’s policies. Furthermore, Trump threatened to do the same against other social media such as You-tube and Facebook. Is Trump overstepping the boundaries as a political leader in regulating social media which HE claims is going against his campaign? Should his posts on social media be regulated when it is deemed offensive by social media companies? Is trying to assume control over social media platforms contradictory to the First Amendment(freedom of speech)?

Emotions or Rational Thinking?

One of my "Room for Debate" articles was "Does Empathy Guide or Hinder Moral Action?". On the one side, Jamil Zaki argues that empathy makes us good people and helps us make the right choices because we feel for others. On the other hand, Paul Bloom states that empathy can skew our vision by making it biased, so empathy often leads to wrong choices, and logic should be used instead. This made me think about whether compassion or logic is better for making the right decisions. Compassion makes you feel for others and makes you want to act, but logic makes you think what will benefit everyone instead of this one person, or for the greater good. So my question is does emotions or rational thought better for us as a society? Which way of thinking would be more beneficial for humans? Why? (Yes a mix of the two would be best, but if you could only choose one, which one?) 

Is Social Media Helping Us, Or Destroying Us?

While reading one of the "Room for Debate" articles, specifically "Is Digital Connectedness Good or Bad for People," I was very conflicted which side to be on. For the pro side, the author argued that social media allows people to bond and connect with others over shared thoughts. Personally, social media has allowed me to get into contact with many of my friends. For instance, I message my peers on Instagram whenever I need help with homework, when I get confused with an assignment, or when I just want to bond and converse with them. I believe social media is a great way to build relationships, which is super great emotionally. However, there are some cons in social media. As I read the argument against social media, which is that social media is just for public validation and not meaningful relationships, I thought of another problem social media causes. That problem, which occurs too often, is the lowering of self-esteem and confidence. Users are always shown beautiful, fit models who have the “perfect body” for society. Obviously, many people don't have these bodies, sometimes causing them to become insecure. This low self confidence issue caused by social media is really damaging to mental health. Both sides of the argument are valid, but I would like to know everyone’s point of view on social media!

Television is Making Americans Do Nothing

In the chapter "The Peak-a-Boo World" of Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Author Neil Postman, introduces Henry D. Thoreau's idea that creating systems that allow information to be sent easily over large spaces decreases the information's quality and the number of responses to that information. Postman warns that one of the perils of television lies in that Americans use it to watch the news. Television is a medium used for entertainment. So, Postman argues, when it is also used as a means to convey important information, the television alters the information's tone, construing it into entertainment. Postman claims that Americans will watch a dire situation occurring in a foreign country on a news channel, ruminate on it for a moment, and proceed as if nothing had happened. Since this will almost always be the result, what ways could American responses be improved? Postman argues that this indifference to information stems from the television and that this was not the case in a typographic world. Therefore, a plausible solution would be to revert back to periodicals. Modern cellular technology would allow such journals to be distributed instantaneously but also have the tone that Postman attributes to typography. Americans would receive information not constrained or misconstrued by television. Be that as it may, should we, as Americans, concern ourselves so much about the foreign world? If we should, what other methods could we implement other than the one suggested?

Classy Dress or Trashy Dress

            A "Room for Debate" article I was reading focused on the topic of dress code, which I know as teens with limitations on what we wear at school can be quite relatable, though the dress code in question was for professions. I know that at school, comfort can be a big factor that plays into what we wear, and if we feel like having a bummy sweats and t-shirt day, we do so without being judged too harshly. Our limitations tend to make sure that we aren't wearing anything revealing or offensive and isn't as extreme as a dress code might be at work. Should workplaces allow their employees similar freedoms that would allow them too to have their bummy days, or should there still be importance in dressing classy at work?

          Debater Glen Handler believes that classy dress is behind us as a society because the suit does not represent power anymore. He believes that dress code and uniforms are now associated with services like law firms and such. Others remark that some corporations have become so casual that those that do dress formally are out of place because how we dress does not matter as much as it used to, and dressing for comfort is perfectly acceptable.
          On the other hand, Ann Saccomano sees dress code as something that is still very prevalent in our world today. She believes that dress codes at school are not enforced for reasons such as to keep boys from "getting distracted," but to prepare us for our future careers which also should have certain standards on what is acceptable to wear in the workplace. A flight attendant pointed out that her uniform allows passengers to easily distinguish who she is and gets their full attention when she has important information to convey to them.
          Another interesting thought brought up in this debate is the fact that in New York, a work dress code cannot apply only to men or women, but must apply to both. The example given is if waiters are expected to wear ties as part of their uniform, waitresses would have to as well.

          Is classy dress truly past us as a society, or does the formality of dress help gain a person respect and authority? Should there be certain dress guidelines maintained in the workplace or not? If so, should it have to apply to all employees, or can certain limitations be directed at specifically men or women? Does our own school dress code help prepare us for life in the workplace?

Technology Over Jobs: Good or Bad?

I have recently started the "long read" section of the summer homework, and since Ms. Walker is my counselor, my article was "Can Computers Ever Replace the Classroom?". The article debates the pros and cons of technology in our society today and how technology is extremely efficient and effective in teaching kids of all ages. One part stood out to me as I read. It said that technology was replacing occupations like factory workers, teachers, and even doctors. This brings up the question is technology replacing jobs good or bad in society? Whereas machines and other technology can be much more efficient than humans, will there be any more jobs for humans? And if this technology does replace all human jobs, is there a reason why kids should go to school to learn? Machines are already doing everything for society, so there will be no point for humans to learn or do anything for that matter. I look forward to your responses!