11-C Tuesday: Critical Response #6

UPDATED - SCORES:

Great work 11C Tuesday.  You are a small group but your effort is most impressive.  This wasn't the easiest or most inspiring CR to respond to (no offense to JH) - but you all managed to write insightful posts and have a good in-class discussion (sometimes more effective and satisfying than a debate).  

Class 11C-Tuesday	C.R.#6
Scorsese	9.8/10
Spielberg	9.6/10
Hitchcock	9.3/10
Kubrick	9.3/10
Tarantino	9.7/10

NOTE - Only for 11-C Tuesday.  Other classes can comment as well and do extra CR's (that's great to see) but we should avoid confusion.  You MUST do the ones your class members come up with.  Extra ones are optional.   


From Joohyung:

The topic for my Critical Response, from TED.com, is "Johanna Blakley: Social media and the end of gender."

She is talking about the old network system and the influence of new social media on gender.
She argues that social media applications (that we all know and love, or love to hate) are actually going to help free us from some of the absurd assumptions that we have as a society about gender. Social media is actually going to help us dismantle some of these silly stereotypes.
It is good to see; however, I think it is highly biased toward women's roles only.  We should think about what causes the real end of intolerance between gender.

These are my brief notes.


1. On social networking sites, people tend to 'network' more with their peer group. So, if I am a college student there would be all sorts of college guys and girls in my friend list. Even if social media demographics continue (and will continue) to hold relevance. So, I don't agree with the broad premise of this talk - that aggregation would shift towards 'interest groups.'

2. It's an interesting observation for marketers that women spend more time on social media sites. Even my personal observation is aligned with this. Just spending more time, however, does not entail interaction with the adverts placed within social media. What is the likelihood of a person following an advert? Maybe this is something we can direct our research towards finding. In a way, the talk is contradicting. The speaker talks about the 'end of gender' and in the end establishes the importance to target females  - and how social media and affiliates should consider them.

______________________________________

Garrioch's Critical Response:

While I think her ideas are interesting, and she has identified some interesting trends regarding social networking and how media is responding to all these new possibilities (for better - which I can agree with), I think she's making some pretty big claims that sound more amazing than they actually are.  An end to gender?  Of course we can't take this literally, and we aren't meant to.  But does the foot of her research fit the shoe of her assumptions? 

In some cultures, her ideas might stand out and be more groundbreaking than others.  Maybe in Muslim countries. But in America, where the playing field is fairly equal for men and women, using the word "feminist" is sensitive and has to be reserved for when and where it is truly needed.   Feminism and Facebook in the same sentence? Maybe, but I'm not convinced by what she reveals (or nearly reveals) in her speech.  Maybe 7 minutes isn't long enough to set the table for what she really wants to say.

We don't have to argue the fact that women use Facebook more than men.  Women like to communicate more actively than men.  Women shop more online and pay more attention to new products than men.  But does that break down the stereotypical views a company might have about how to serve a target market? There are TV shows specifically geared towards genders, and that will never change.  And why should it?  At the end of the day is this going to impact the issues that really matter in society?  Not really.  

After watching this TED Talk, I didn't have any strong impression of what Blakely was saying. Compared to Robinson's message of creativity, this message of "women are going to dominate media" is not that groundbreaking.  Women have been strong players in media for a long time.  I'd be more interested if she was discussing a minority group.

Interested in hearing what others had to say about Blakley's views, I went to YouTube to see the comments for this same video.  The good and the bad regarding comments on YouTube:  lot's of stupidity but also a lot of candid insights - which are ranked with a "top comment" near the top.  I was happy to see someone agreed with me here:

Top Comments

• I believe that gender stereotypes are moving more and more towards being a thing of the past.
  Nevertheless, this talk is quite unpersuasive - Blakley only talks on how social media is changing our lives; then show a statistic that women use social media more than man (which btw doesn't have anything to do with her suggestion that women are driving the "social revolution").
  Bottomline: Blakley does little to defend her statement that social media will free us from assumptions about gender.
  parachucha 3 months ago 11
   
• @juditK2007 Do you think that everyone, who is critical of TEDwomen is a sexist reactionary?
  I gave this talk a thumbs down, because it was slightly incoherent. She loosely outlined some trends, which she interpreted a little poorly. For example, if women constitute 55% of the general population, they SHOULD comprise 55% of social networks. It doesn't demonstrate increased female influence. It just follows from the density of the population. She let her internal agenda color her conclusion.
  t3tsuyaguy1 3 months ago 9

So - please complete your CR's BEFORE next class, and see what you come up with.  This one is a bit tough.8) 

11-C Wednesday: Debate Feedback and CR#6

This was an okay debate, and it seems most of you had a pretty good base knowledge of the issue.  Here are the scores for this debate and for CR#6.  You can see Seungchol's and Daeun's flowsheets on their blogs.   If you were a judge and haven't done anything with those yet, please get those flowsheets emailed or posted much sooner than later please.

Above is a poster for another documentary made by Morgan Spurlock.  Kind of ironic.  I've never seen it, but would like to.  I thought some of you might be interested to know that this film does in face exist.

11C – Wednesday	Debate 6	CR#6
Zerus	8.9	9.0
Paralta	9.1	9.2
Tarsonis	9.3	9.7
Shakuras	*9.0	9.3
Albion
Terran	9.4	9.7
Halcyon	9.3	9.6
Aridas	*9.3	9.3
Cerebus		9.7
Maltair	9.3	9.4
Roxara	*9.2

 

MOTION: THB: The assassination of Osama Bin Laden was justified.
Date:6/19/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Seungmin		Changwoo
Delivery	8.9 /10	Posture and overall delivery needs to improve.  Need to prepare more.   Good clear speech.	9.0 /10	Pretty decent and very clear approach.
Arguments	8.9 /10	Some people believe Osama’s assassination can be justified for several reasons.  Osama = terrorist, who committed 9/11.  Assassination = killing without procedure. Arg 1 – Killing Osama protects human rights. Arg 2 – Sends message to other terrorists. Arg 3 – Prevents further terrorism under Bin Laden. Protection of human rights – Bin Laden destroys this notion.  Because of him, many have died. Saving lives by killing him. Secondly – sends strong message to the public.  9/11 created terror.  By assassinating him, we created awareness and prevention. Without this act, terrorism is reduced.  (Public in not aware about terror. (??? I’d say they are.))  TIME: 4:33	9.1 /10	Humans are social animals…. (??? Odd intro). So we believe the assassination is not justified.  Rebuttal 1 – protecting human rights?  But even killers have the right to be heard by the law.  Rebuttal 2 – Strong message to the people? Tread on a worm and it will turn.  Even when a strong thing attacks a weaker one, the wheel of revenge is set in motion.  (Rebuttals undernourished – need more.  But really the Leader of the Opp should not be rebutting – but instead clarifying or objecting to certain claims made towards the motion by the PM.  Let the deputy handle initial rebuttal.) Arg 1 – Disobeys international laws. Arg 2- Against morality. Arg 3 – Creates more terrorism. Arg 1 – US government did not alert Pakistan.  Obvious abuse of law.  Innocent until proven guilty – even for Bin Laden.  Nazis and Hussein were heard – why not Bin Laden?  Arg 2 – Loss of morality.  Mission was to kill him, not capture him.  This is not justified.  Bin Laden was not armed.  Almost no resistance according the US government.  So it was not essential to kill him.  The US government is committing a crime. TIME: 4:59
Notes	Tot 16.9 /20		Tot 18.1 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Jegug	Pts	Wonhyuk
Delivery	9.3 /10	Good work and effective calm delivery.  Just one weak area in the arguments.	9.3 /10	Excellent.  Good delivery.  Good arguments.
Arguments	9.2 /10	First rebuttal – Terrorists have rights?  Yes they do, but civilians do as well – and we have to respect these above those of terrorists.  Second rebuttal – This assassination will create more terrorists?  But we are being strong against them.  That sends a message.  NYT Article – security has been tripled at airports.  This makes things more safe.  Argument – This is WAR against terrorists.  In times of war we kill our opponents.  We can’t stop and think too much.  We can’t trust Pakistan’s government, so why alert them?  You say Bin Laden has a right to trial – but look at the videos where Bin Laden admits to his actions?  We are beyond a need for a trial. (Good arguments here).  HE was not unnamred.  He had guards etc., and this was an offensive against US troops.  So this does mean he was unnarmed in essence. Argument – We need speedy action to do what we need to do.  Scenario – what if Bin Laden escapes?  He was able to create 9/11, so we can’t underestimate him.  He’s dangerous.  We don’t know what could have happened.  Scenario 2 – he creates more terror EVEN while under custody.  IF he is dead, the possibilities are reduced for further actions.  These trials take time – maybe 4 years?  Advocates of Bin Laden might have gathered to a cause, him becoming a symbol.  What if he was set free??? (I don’t think that’s a fathomable scenario or risk – not effective for this debate).  Prompt action was necessary and justified. TIME: 6:00	9.3 /10	We on the opp. disagree.  Mistakes that GOV just made.  Human rights – murders and criminals still have rights.  We make these promises, so we should keep them.  Rebuttal – Sending a message to terrorists.  Like capital punishment – we say this sends a message.  But is it effective?  We believe murdering terrorists is not effective to reducing them as a risk.  If anything, it creates anger among them and cause for revenge.  SEUNGCHAN – POI – We didn’t have to kill him Arg – Assassination was without purpose.  Taking down a symbol of terrorism to send a message.  Murdering Bin Laden has only created revenge mission.  We could have used him for information, so killing him makes no sense.  Unlawful, and also ineffective. Why did they kill him?  If we see the emotional outcry of favor and celebration, we see the real reasons they did it.  To become popular.  Even our vision trips are at risk.  What the US has done is foolish.  TIME: 5:20
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20		Tot 18.6 /20
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Seungchan	Pts	Sumin
Delivery	9.3 /10	Nice work, but a bit repetitive to what was already stated by Jegug.	9.4 /10	Good as always.  Preamble a good idea but analogy not so strong.  Time management issues – way too long.
Arguments	9.2 /10	Today the OPP stood up for terrorism and human rights of them.  (Interesting emotional appeal).  First clash – human rights of these criminals.  WE are in a WAR – in this case we have the right to kill the enemy.  Human rights must not be protected as they have already abused those of others.  The US has no obligation to care about these terrorists. Not the same as a simple murder or incident that lacks clear details.  The US did not get permission?  Because we can’t trust the Pakistan government.  Do we really have to let Bin Laden have his say?  That’s is not helpful.  Even if he is disarmed, we can’t consider this.  When the US troops moved in, they were confronted with gunfire.  We can’t actually capture these individuals. Need for speedy action – court process does not help.  Escape is possible.  What if terrorists help him escape?  Clearly Bin Laden has continued to plan terror – so we can’t risk this process of judicial decision. You say we instigate more terrorism – but if we allow a court date we would even create MORE anger.  Assassination is justified. TIME: 5:30	9.3 /10	Let’s say that a kid is sick in bed with a cold.  So you give him ice and cool him down.  But you won’t cure his cold.  This is a short term remedy, and like this the GOV is arguing a short term remedy to terrorism.  TWO main clashes – efficiency and righteous cause. Efficiency – GOV has agreed that Osama is a symbol.  Perhaps killing him will create a short term dilemma for terrorists – BUT in the long term chaos will result.  Laws not followed, and revenge incurred.  Terrorists will retaliate.  In Pakistan, things have already started – destruction.  If you make friends with a bully, you should hit him back, right? Not in this case.  The international community should agree to these things.  Prop has also argued this.  Osama will only be replaced.  Killing him won’t really hurt the terrorists.  It will only fan the flames.  Proper proceedings – NOT followed.  Yes, he confessed to 9/11.  Regardless, we assume he is innocent until proven guilty.  We still have to obey this.  The law says all must be put on a trial.  Justice can’t be achieved like this in an eye for an eye sense. Disorder has only been created from this.  Second Clash – US just does what I wants selectively.
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20		Tot 18.7 /20

B-ware of B's.

We are heading into the final month of class and I want top notch work and effort and enthusiasm from you guys.

From now on - please do the following:

• Heed the deadlines.  I'm going to be strict.  You will only have one week to do the CR's from the day I post the criteria on the blog.
• Minimum 400 words.
• Put in a pic, a link, or a video to make your post have some sort of color and character other than a block of text.
• Include the three debate motions at the end.  This should be automatic by now.

Some students seem to think Debate is an easy A, but I am going to weigh in class participation heavily.  Don't B a B student.   Just because you get high scores in debates and a few CR's does not assure an A. 

11-C Wednesday - CR# 6 from Kwonsok

The above trailer for "Team America: World Police" is somewhat relevant, 
and if you haven't seen the movie...I highly recommend it.

 

From Kwonsok: 
Note: Only for 11-C Wednesday.  Other classes can respond for extra credit.

I read the following articles, and thought about it for a while.

 
http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/08/us-intervention-was-it-legal.html
 

Mr. Garrioch says that the following article is also related to this topic.
 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/obama-america-superpower-like/
 

The following is my essay after reading the two articles given above.
           America is the most powerful country in the world. No one can deny this fact. Only America currently has stealth jet fighters. The economy of the whole world is based on the American dollar. America is a pretty “nosey” country since it always intervenes in the problem of other countries. All these facts play a role in proving that America is a powerful country. However, these facts do not make America the “most” powerful country in the world. The most critical reason why America is the most powerful country in the world is somewhat more ideological then the facts stated above.

           America is a country that does “anything” to protect the rights and freedom of its citizens. This is what makes America the most powerful country in the world. The assassination of Osama Bin Laden can be a good example. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the 9.11 terror in 2001. America’s response to such actions was simple: Find and kill Osama Bin Laden until his heart stops beating. And that is what they did. America kept on trying for a decade to show what happens to the world if someone violates the freedom and rights of its people. Even if America failed to kill Bin Laden this time, America surely would not give up.

           There are many other examples. America took part in the Korean War to block the spread of communism and conclusively, protect the democratic freedom of its people. America leads the movement of denuclearizing the world to protect its citizens from nuclear threat. America creates military bases in other countries, including Korea, to protect its citizens in that area. All of these actions can be justified from the American point of view. But can it be justified from the points of views of other countries?

           As a Korean, I view America’s actions as the following. Sometimes, I view American action as beneficial to Korea, such as helping Korea out during the Korean War. During other times however, I view American action as very cunning in a negative sense. For instance, America says that the world needs to be denuclearized for the safety of everyone, but the irony is that America itself possesses nuclear weapons. So isn’t the underlying mentality of such actions not to protect “all” people of the world but just to protect “its” citizens? America creates all sorts of justifications to intervene in the issues of other countries to protect its citizens. I think of such actions as hypocritical and devilish.

           However, I do not blame America for acting in such ways. America is faithfully carrying out its role of what a country should do: protect the rights and freedom of its citizens at “all” times. America is just doing what it should do, even if such actions are hypocritical and devilish. Instead, I think that other countries, including Korea, should emulate what America is doing. For example, Korea should not give cash to North Korea to create nuclear weapons which in turn would threaten Korea itself, but get revenge on North Korea for the men who sacrificed their lives to protect Korea.

           Selfishness, although it is something not thought of as a good quality, is the nature of human beings, and it actually promotes capitalist development. Similarly, countries, too, should be “selfish” by safeguarding the freedom and rights of its citizens because such actions are the reasons why countries exist.

           What do you guys think about American actions to protect the freedom and rights of its citizens? Do you agree on the claim that countries should be “selfish”? Can such “selfishness” of countries be justified?

Debate Motions

1. THB American actions to protect the freedom and rights of its citizens can be justified.
2. THB countries should be “selfish.”

3. THB “selfishness” of countries can be justified.

* The last two motions are somewhat similar, but the following is how they are different. It might be right that countries should be “selfish,” but such “selfishness” might not be justifiable. For instance, one should, in the mentality of a few conservative people, kill a person if that person killed one’s parents, but clearly killing cannot be justified in all cases.

__________________________________________