For most of history ordinary people have been viewed as “weeds and rain drops,” as part of a mob, a rabble, all of which are ways of constituting them as an undifferentiated mob.
This shows how the normalcy of society is not influential to growth and change. They follow the rules set by society without question.
Once the humanity of a people is problematized, they are called into question perennially. Their beauty is attacked: wrong hips, lips, noses, skin texture, skin pigmentation, and hair texture.
The standards set by society are constantly influencing the definition of beauty and how it should be represented. In this case, the "lack of beauty" according to society's standards at that time becomes a problem.
Race must be addressed in a form that can deal with its complexity and irrationality.
Society's outlet for conversation in terms of controversial topics needs to be reinstated and reintroduced as a more complex idea. This seems to influence the lack of information being shared in an understanding and positive way.
motivated by three distinct goals: to make money; to have political influence, either foreign or domestic; and to cause trouble for the sake of it.
The motives are detrimental to our society's growth in terms of trust. The fact that honesty is not a main motivation in sharing information is terrifying because it shows just how corrupt the media outlets really are.
As tools designed to manipulate and amplify content become cheaper and more accessible, it will be even easier to weaponize users as unwitting agents of disinformation.
With the increase in availability for media and social outlets, this is more likely to occur the further we continue to develop technologically. Media will be weaponized as a means of promoting propaganda and misinformation on a global scale.
Foreign agents of disinformation would amplify the division, driving wedges between communities and sowing chaos.
It is a bit scary to see how the increase in disinformation is leading to this exact concept. Communities are being divided based on the rumors and lies that are being spread through media. This is ultimately creating the chaos and distrust within communities.
The only way to defeat evil and ugliness is to find out where they come from and to face the nature of their power. Disavow Rowling’s views if you disagree. But don’t give up the model she created for how to fight back against them.
I really like this point because of how it is presenting the idea of disagreement, but not to go against the good points that have been stated in terms of a "battle" by JK Rowling.
Popularity doesn’t make a work good, but the persistent sales suggest there’s something in the book that appeals to American readers — and that might be worth examining.
Interesting point stated because of the truth behind what makes a work "good" and worth looking into.
But boycotting Rowling’s new work or denying you ever liked Harry Potter doesn’t negate her power to persuade and entertain.
Strong point to how this is not really impacting JK Rowling.
quickest way for opponents of these works to discredit themselves
Interesting thought to society's judgement. It really does seem to be discrediting their views.
Rowling as anti-transgender has plenty of material from her manifesto
Is her work being mischaracterized solely because of her own personal views?
Given that Rowling has suggested that some men may legally change their gender to prey on women, outrage followed.
It seems to show that the controversy between JK Rowling and transphobia is being seen within her recent novel, but it is a question about whether or not the novel is truly touching upon that subject.
Wildly popular author shares controversial beliefs about transgender people and gender identity.
Here is a basic summary of how and what the "tea" is surrounding JK Rowling.
“You can’t improve intuition. Perhaps, with very long-term training, lots of talk, and exposure to behavioral economics, what you can do is cue reasoning, so you can engage System 2 to follow rules. Unfortunately, the world doesn’t provide cues. And for most people, in the heat of argument the rules go out the window.
This input is interesting because I have never really thought about intuition and whether or not it can improve. The way Kahneman explains it makes sense because intuition seems to be a quality that just happens, but having a factor of reasoning explains how we react to certain situation. Society's behavior is irrational, so it would make sense for reasoning to not always be present in a situation.
hen people hear the word bias, many if not most will think of either racial prejudice or news organizations that slant their coverage to favor one political position over another.
It would be interesting to see the percentages and statistics of how people view the term bias and to what relation they tie it too. A lot of people disregard the massive collection of bias, so it would be interesting to see how people view the term after seeing all of the categories.
How will I feel toward the end of my life if my offspring are not taken care of?
It is interesting to see how the influence of other people, especially those that we care about, impact our bias and ideas towards saving and spending. If I were given the notion that my loved ones would need to be cared for financially, I know that it would completely shape my overall bias.
“We’re in a digital culture,” Wolf says. “It’s not a question of making peace. We have to be discerning, vigilant, developmentally savvy.”
I agree with the idea that we cannot just live with digital culture in the sense that we have to just let it happen. Even as things are changing, we have to adapt and stay "vigilant" in order to properly improve our thought process' along with the improvement of digital culture.
“One of the greatest dangers we face,” he writes, “as we automate the work of our minds, as we cede control over the flow of our thoughts and memories to a powerful electronic system, is ... a slow erosion of our humanness and our humanity.”
I find this statement imperative to how the increase in technology can implode with unintended consequences. The idea that technology is eroding our humanity is frightening because I feel like it isn't far from the truth. The increase in technology has decreased our ability to communicate face to face within a society and that is only the beginning of what skills will continue to deteriorate. It is worrisome to think about how technology can affect our reading potential.
the reader was at last able to establish an unrestricted relationship with the book and the words.
I love the idea that reading silently allows the reader to establish a relationship between the book and the words. I feel as if it also establishes a relationship between the reader and the story because it allows for an uninterrupted sequence of understanding. I also like how it allows to reader to compare his memories to the story. It almost seems like the lack of silent reading eliminates the possibility of comparison and connection based on Manguel's analysis.
He was equally unimpressed by the argument that it’s one’s duty to vote. “It would be bad if no one farmed,” he wrote, “but that does not imply that everyone should farm.” In fact, he suspected, the imperative to vote might be even weaker than the imperative to farm.
Brennan's opinion on the argument of voting is extremely interesting to analyze because it is going against the idea that voting is a civic responsibility. He believes that by not voting, you're actually helping someone else's vote count more. I find this counterintuitive because isn't the act of voting supposed to promote the concept of democracy? If your vote doesn't actually mean anything, as Brennan states, what is the point, especially if it somehow causes more harm than good?
First, one could deny that truth was a suitable standard for measuring political judgment. This sounds extreme, but it’s a fairly common move in political philosophy.
This is a scary notion to think about because of the how much our society values the truth. Unfortunately, truth isn't always the basis for political judgment as the article states. It is interesting how the lack of truth is a common move in political philosophy because, as I said, truth should be the number one requirement when addressing any concept related to politics.
Voter literacy tests weren’t permanently outlawed by Congress until 1975, years after the civil-rights movement had discredited them.
It is crazy to think that they weren't outlawed until somewhat recently. It is also insane to think that there really wasn't a concern for them even after they were discredited.
Mill’s larger project—at a time when no more than nine per cent of British adults could vote—was for the franchise to expand and to include women. But he worried that new voters would lack knowledge and judgment, and fixed on supplementary votes as a defense against ignorance.
I find this statement interesting because it included women, but was then disregarded due to a lack of knowledge. Men who didn't go to university could have been just as "ignorant." I also find the idea of giving those with an education more than one vote irrational because of the uneven distribution that would have completely altered the elections.