"What's So Bad About Hate?" by Andrew Sullivan

Questions that the author attempts to answer:
1. Is hate a natural instinct or an attitude that one develops?
2. Have new laws been effective in combating hate crimes?
Question for the author:
3. How are minorites supposed to be "indifferent" to the racial epithets from majority groups?

Response

After thousands of years of evolutionary forces acting on the wiring of our brain, we have developed a skepticism and a sense of fear that is anything different from our own self. Making these distinctions between two individuals who look different resulted in the social constructions of race that are scientifically not true since, for example, a black person and a white person have no dramatic difference in the genetic composition between the two of them. In addition, experiences that have been engrained in our mind and the culture we were brought up in helps to shape our current views. Andrew Sullivan dives into this in his piece about the generalizations that we view as bigotry are not necessarily the problem. We all have some views that can perceived as hatred, but they truly are not. He argues that in a free society we will never suppress hate.

            Religious conservatives are victims of this with their views on marriage. A high ranking official of Chick-Fil-A voiced his position in favor of traditional marriage. There was immediate outrage from the community claiming this was hate speech and calling for boycotts. Did this individual have a malicious intent or was he voicing his opinion? This attempt to silence the opinion of this individual is believed to be counterproductive according to Sullivan. We are all going to have difference of views and we have to get to a point where we can coexist with all these individuals.

            I believe it is an innate quality of humans to make generalizations of people. Juan Williams, a political commentator, stirred up controversy when he said that once he felt uncomfortable when we saw a Middle Eastern man sitting on a plane that he was on. Obviously it was a dumb thing to say in public, but I do not blame him for having that feeling. Since 9/11, all Americans have been shaken by that tragedy and their world view has been dramatically altered. And in this age of terrorism by radicalized Muslims, we tend to make generalizations about Muslims that are unsavory, when in fact almost all of them are incredible people. These impulses we have come from the experiences we encounter in life. We cannot control them and by having them does not mean that we are bigots. If these impulses form an ideology, then it has become bigotry.  

"Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex" by Camille Paglia

Questions that the author attempts to answer:
1. How do today's superstars in the music industry compare to that of previous generations?
2. Are there anymore transcendent sex symbols?
3. How has society and culture affected music taste?

Response

Amidst the height in the popularity of Lady Gaga, Camille Paglia, in her piece “Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex”, highlights the more unsavory sides of Lady Gaga. This new artist, with bizarre antics and an eccentric wardrobe, has been propelled to a level of fame similar to that of Madonna. Paglia, however, asserts that Lady Gaga is a “manufactured personality” without any originality in that she “has borrowed heavily from Madonna” (3). There is no doubt that Lady Gaga is a superstar, but is she really a transcendent figure in the music industry as artists from previous generations have? Paglia argues that she is not, and I myself would happen to agree.

             The level of stardom and fame that musicians reach in the music industry today is very brief. This is due both a depletion of real talent and the consumers of music. It is so easy to mask musician’s inadequacies in making music, with voice alternations and the use electronics to make sounds. Our consumption of music has changed drastically alone in the last ten years with the advent of iTunes. Instead of buying entire albums, we can buy singles, thus our appreciation for the artist tends to be diminished. Thirty years ago, one song was not to stand alone, it was complemented by other singles on an album, creating a better and deeper experience for the listener. Today it is very superficial in that we only get a little bit, instead of the whole.

            My sister, whose love for popular artists such as Justin Bieber and One Direction is fanatical, always gets upset when my dad would say that they do not have any lasting power. He would say that thirty years from now, we would not be listening to artists such as Justin Bieber. I absolutely agree. Paglia points out that Elton John is “still on the radio after 40 years” (5). If we turn on the radio today, The Beatles are still on, David Bowie is still famous, and many other artists from the late seventies and the early eighties are still widely popular. Madonna, approximately 30 years from her peak in popularity, performed in the Super Bowl halftime show, the greatest spectacle in American culture. I do not envision any star in today’s music industry having that kind of lasting power. I do not think I have heard a Lady Gaga song on the radio in two years, even though she was widely popular in 2010 when Paglia wrote her piece.

            This brevity in popularity is due to the instantaneous nature of society in which we live in. We can have instant access to any type of music we want, this our allegiance to an artist can change very easily. A new artist can ascend to stardom at a rate unprecedented in the history of the music industry. After one song, One Direction was catapulted to the mountain top of popularity. These factors have contributed to an industry with prospects of no real sustaining power for the future.

"Is Google Making Us Stupid" by Nicholas Carr

Questions that author answers:
1. What are some affects of modern technology?
2. Has the Internet advanced learning?
3. What are some unintended consequences of progress?

Response

I choose to respond to question three because the unintended consequences of progress are stressed in the article written by Nicholas Carr. In the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, Carr highlights the unforeseen effects due to the growth and use of the Internet. The progress that is due to the Internet, Carr argues, is a false perception in that it has caused digression in human thought and how we read information. Given this context, I take some issue with his position.

            I define progress as anything that improves the human experience in terms of growth in intelligence and exposure to information. It also includes making things easier for the human condition. According to these conditions, the Internet fulfills all of them. Never before in human history have we been able to have access to enormous amounts of information in such a short amount of time. We can look up historical events with ease, we can do research very efficiently, we can be exposed to opinions who may differ than ourselves. All of this exposure to information has benefited individuals because we can expand our reservoir of knowledge inside our brains. All of these indicate that the Internet has been a benefit for society.

            I also take issue the reason that Carr outlines as the true reason for our digression. It is not the Internet, it is us. Throughout the article, Carr uses anecdotes of individuals who have trouble focusing and paying attention to what they read online (2). That is not the Internet’s fault; it is the fault of these individuals who get distracted, thus inhibiting them from the close reading of any text online. Google and the Internet are not getting us distracted, the environment we surround ourselves in causes the distraction. A distraction-free environment while reading a book can also be achieved as we intake information from the Web. We can tune-out the videos, stop reading emails, and ignore the advertisements. The deep reading that we experience when we focus on a book can still be experienced when we read anything online. Instead of just skimming the headlines, we should make an effort to read the article. Laziness and complacency has started to keep into society in how we ingest information.