en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2411463 Comments by Irakanji http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/why-does-society-dislike-immigrants-and-why-are-they-portrayed-badly-119-blog/#IDComment145212976 Society “hates” on immigrants simply because they are different and are perceived as a threat to their own current way of life. They are seen as invaders in a way. People are always resistant to change and that is no different when it comes to immigration. Immigrants have to live somewhere and if it’s next to someone who considers themselves a hardcore patriotic American and has a strong sense of national pride, a pettiness can emerge. This can be because of perceived rivalries between two different nations. This could be demonstrated by people who see all Germans as Nazis and hold a grudge or hatred toward a certain group of people simply because they are associated with one type of group. This obviously also applies to profiling which is a big part of how immigrants are seen in modern America. When a person says “immigrant” one of the first images in one’s mind is a Mexican immigrant, often illegal. This is the stigma that therefore gets applied to every other immigrant, especially from Latin America. European immigrants are seen as less of threat mostly because they are usually white and share a lot of similarities with America culture, being that the United States was initially founded by a bunch of immigrant Europeans and people tend to forget that when talking about immigrants these days. So society sees immigrants as a threat to their way of life, security, and nationalism, immigrants being portrayed badly in the media and in politics is a reflection of this. If a politician has a firm stance against illegal immigration they get a strong voter response from more patriotic Americans. They are playing the field so to speak in order to win votes and subsequently – elections. Immigrants do play an important role in the economy and immigration, legal and illegal, is monumentally influenced by the world of business much like the rest of politics in general. If immigrants did not come over and fill labor demands in the country for low wages we wouldn’t be able to have access to such cheap produce, even if that produce is from all the way across the country. Unfortunately the societal stigma placed upon immigrant, legal or otherwise, is such that it makes very hard to get ahead without already having a college degree. This is tragic because some of the brightest people and hardest working are in fact immigrants themselves. Being so quick to judge someone based on their background, country of origin, or language barrier they have is just inherently wrong and is something that should be changed in the country’s consciousness. Immigration is the great American past-time that has fallen into dislike with the majority of the country. We have tons of unused land that could very well be used and populated and in my opinion we should make legal immigration easier. Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:55:02 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/why-does-society-dislike-immigrants-and-why-are-they-portrayed-badly-119-blog/#IDComment145212976 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/14/what-does-it-say-about-our-society-if-schools-are-more-segregated-now-than-in-the-1970s-119-blog/#IDComment142969057 It says a whole lot about our society that our schools are so segregated. In a way it is entirely our fault and in a way it is only partially our fault. Past racism and segregation set the poverty lines and set the standard for today wealth gap between rich and poor. Poor people in the intercity are mostly black, especially on the east coast. This predominance of minorities in the intercity and the extreme lack of funding for the schools in that area cause most of the segregation in the today’s education system. Actually it isn’t really the location of the schools. It is the injustices against the minorities in the United States that have set them up for failure. It is hard to get ahead when they live in conditions that do promote success. The reason a lot kids in the intercity resort to gang life and violence and crime is simply because they do not see any other way out. This leads to a vicious cycle of poverty. Which in turn leads their children going through the same things they did and in the end their lives aren’t much better compared to their parents. It isn’t like the new generations haven’t tried to make society as a whole more equal and help stop the cycle often found in the intercity. I am by no means saying that everyone in the intercity is a hoodlum, violent, a criminal, or even a minority. The topic of this discussion is the predominance of minority children in these schools and the dominance of white children at the better schools in the area. This disparity is caused by the wealth gap in society today and it is widening every day. This says that we have completely stopped our progress as a society and we may even be going backwards. The idea in the mind of the general public, especially in white people, it that all that we can do to promote equality we have already done and there is no reason to keep pushing to make it a truly equal society. As long as we can just appear to embrace equality we can pretend it is actually happening. Companies have numerous policies and the government has enacted laws but these things cannot always control and guide the thinking of people in general and employees and employers. The individual is the one that has to improve their thinking and bit by bit we can move to end the inequality and get the idea into our heads that everyone truly is equal. We can’t just throw money at organizations that say they promote equality and just be happy with ourselves. It is going to take individual strives to completely end it and start making progress again. Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:30:43 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/14/what-does-it-say-about-our-society-if-schools-are-more-segregated-now-than-in-the-1970s-119-blog/#IDComment142969057 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/05/what-do-you-think-of-the-291-statistic-and-what-number-would-you-pick-119-blog/#IDComment140876795 First of all the number of civilian causalities allowed that Sam referred to was likely the Army’s policy on high value targets. Obviously the military isn’t going to blow an apartment complex to hell for one dude with a rocket launcher; that is completely against their policy. Another one of the Army’s policies is to cause the least amount of collateral damage to an area as possible. Now that is out of the way we can actually discuss the question at hand. I am by no means a pacifist and one may even call me a patriotic defender of sorts. If attacked outright by another nation on our soil I would be one of the first ones lined up at the recruitment office. The question is what do we think of the 29:1 ratio and why and which number would I choose. As I said earlier the 29:1 ratio is most likely only for high value targets and if we had to kill 29 civilians to take down Bin Laden or someone else of high value in a terrorist organization then hell yes blow them all to high hell to make sure the head of the organization is dead. But that is my opinion from the American point of view. If Bin Laden was hiding out in the United States and he had 30 American hostages then our ideas would likely change. The Army’s policy however would not, they would endanger the lives of those 30 Americans to capture or kill Bin Laden no doubt but they would do it trying to minimize the possible civilian casualties. One must think in terms of lives saved instead of lives lost in capturing this person. Say we didn’t take him out because the risk of civilian casualties was just too high and then he orchestrated another attack that killed ten times the people who were at risk before. Those are the kind of scenarios that one must think about when deciding a number. My number would probably be below 29 and be closer to 15 because I think with our modern technology and our military’s training of its personnel is the best in the world and we could pull it off without losing that many soldiers or civilians. And the value of the elimination or even capture of the high value target in question could possible lead to the actual destruction of the terrorist organization. The question becomes a lot more complicated when dealing with targets of less value then the cost of civilian lives are of much more importance and have to be weighed heavily in the equation of the value of the information gained from the target and the cost of human lives attributed with the capture or death of the target. In the end it isn’t our decision to make right now and hopefully we won’t have to ask ourselves that question. Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:20:29 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/05/what-do-you-think-of-the-291-statistic-and-what-number-would-you-pick-119-blog/#IDComment140876795 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/31/has-the-class-on-the-needy-penis-made-you-uncomfortable-and-why-119-blog/#IDComment139208769 The lecture the needy penis was a kind of an eye opener for a lot of people and it was definitely a talk people needed to hear, especially women. The fact that it made some people uncomfortable was inevitable. To me though, the lecture kind of let me a bit angry. At the end they stressed that sexual assault for a female is a very real and pressing issue at Penn State and they made it seem that the majority of men would commit such a crime pointing out that some have in the class and some will commit the crime later in their lives. I think the point Sam made about that made women in the audience feel like all of the men in the audience and the rest of the men at the college were evil and searching for women to sexually assault. Now I can’t say that women received the latter part of the lecture in this fashion because I am not a women and I can only assume. Otherwise the lecture did bring to light several things that are not often talked about in popular society. The fact that women were living in a man’s world and were conditioned to be more like men when it comes to sex was not a foreign concept to me at any rate and this lecture just reinforced my views. I’m not saying that I don’t agree with how the world is. Logically I shouldn’t because being a man is great in the modern world and throughout history. As Sam mentioned, we won. It isn’t the best question to ask for the male perspective on the lecture because it was mainly centered on us. In my opinion women could take the most beneficial information away from the lecture and take it to view their lives and the world through their own lens. As far as the information that males can take away is a new view on females, a better understanding on the differences between bodies, and a greater respect for what women go through on a day to day basis and when pressured for sex. For couples it can create a whole new perspective on the functionality of their own relationship and can either solve some issues or bring up ones that they didn’t know they had. The over-all experience of the lecture was a good one and it was important life experience advice from two well respected members of the faculty. Hopefully the things I outlined earlier in this post were actually taken away from the majority of people in the lecture no matter their current level of sexual activity or their sexual affiliation. All in all it was a good talk. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:10:28 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/31/has-the-class-on-the-needy-penis-made-you-uncomfortable-and-why-119-blog/#IDComment139208769 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/18/where-do-the-messages-come-from-119-blog/#IDComment137607278 The messages that kids pick up can come from anywhere and any environment that the child is exposed to during the most impressionable times of the growth of the mind. Most parents take their kids everywhere they go or they hire a nanny. Taking babies and children to places like church, synagogue, or temple might present them of the narrow minded ideas of that particular preacher or congregation especially if there is a very vocal member of the congregation. As for the nannies most parents don’t bother to ask what their view on race and politics is so their child might be subjugated to their view points and ideals. This is only not to mention the parents who are the main influence on their children at all times in their lives until adulthood. The children are also exposed to television that they watch. Parents and nannies must also be aware that the TV they watch can also be viewed by the children with them though they might not take a special interest in it they are still being influenced by it. Most entertainment consumed by adults makes it to the eyes and ears of children. Comedy, seen as harmless by most adults, can be easily talked about and off-color jokes can be made in the presence of children often portraying stereotypes and other negative things about certain races and cultures, whatever the topic may be. Liberal or conservative news channels can also be a major influence on children in the home by exposing them to often extremist views of mainstream politics and racial movements. Children can also be influenced by their teachers and their classmates. All of things previously mentioned in the response come in to play when there are dozens of other children and other adults in the picture. There is no telling what backgrounds and ideologies these adults and children come from. A child can be exposed to all facets of life and ideas. Also teachers might be teaching them things that might be construed as racist or promoting one race, culture, or idea as better and the dominant one over others. The last and final thing a child could be influenced is by themselves and their own experiences. If the child has a bad experience with another child it could be burned into their memory and not allow them to have fresh experiences with the same race ever again in their lives. A religious aspect to it could also occur. Rivalries or even hatred could occur if religious fanaticism is instilled into a child and they full embrace ideals and see all others as wrong. This could especially be a problem in the kid has a tendency for hatred or violence toward others. This could provide fuel to the fire so to speak. All in all every different ideology is presented to a child almost every day so it is impossible to pin point or blame just one outlet. Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:07:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/18/where-do-the-messages-come-from-119-blog/#IDComment137607278 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/is-this-an-action-of-white-supremacy-119-blog/#IDComment135727504 Writing “White Power” near a white loop bus stop would always be a joke when it is received in context. But it isn’t always received in context so logically it cannot always be a joke then. The phrase must also be worked out in context. So if a person were to see it 99% of people would automatically think it was a white supremacist ploy to gain support or spread hate at Penn State but with the multicultural community here they would not get very far all in all but that is beside the point. It all comes down to how the joke is perceived and the mindset of the person reading it. In my opinion if one were to write white power on the white loop side and were to write blue power on the blue loop side then the joke would be forever in context as long as both phrases were seen by the person in question. It’s a delicate subject to be toyed with though so it must be used delicately. It has such a history of inciting a reaction from people it could be used in several ways to promote something though it may be construed in a negative light but it would always produce a lot of publicity and as they say any publicity is good publicity. It could be used a way to raise awareness of racism on campus but there are better ways to go about that sort of publicity and to promote equality. The method that someone would be using this kind of language is the shock method which just wakes up people who see it in their day and that inspires thought in their heads that force them to think about race. It promotes the discussion of race with other people because it gives people a common enemy to unite against and as we all know there is power in numbers and there is diffusion of responsibility in large crowds. This always people to say what is on their minds more openly if they know they cannot be individually identified within the crowd and they can’t be called out so to speak. In fact they don’t even have to be able to explain their ideas to the general public and they don’t have to be responsible for what they say. So in the end this sort of thing could be a good thing because it brings to light that this may still be going on and it can wake up people to improving race relations not only in Penn State and State College but back home in their home towns. It can be a good and a bad thing in the end it just up to the context and the intent. Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:54:33 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/is-this-an-action-of-white-supremacy-119-blog/#IDComment135727504 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/06/are-whites-racially-oppressed/#IDComment134057967 The question whether or not whites are racially oppressed is an obvious one if it is looked at simply and as an overall question the answer is obvious, no. Once you get down into the details though it is not so easily answered. Whites are victims of a unique type of racism which isn’t really racism at all but more like a form of reverse racism. White people, as a taboo of society, cannot make decisions that would portray them as racist especially if they are a politician. Even if the their decision wasn’t racist at heart, as long as something can be seen as racist by another person the original idea or decision might as well not even see the light of day. This is something everyone who is white or a minority, but to a lesser extent, especially if the person is in the public must be aware of and it must be something to avoid, unless you have the best public relations agent in the world. This and all of the organizations aimed at the promotion of minorities in the modern world are all types of this “reverse racism” and it is just now coming into the common white consciousness that white people are losing their grip on the power structure in America. White privilege in America has been making up for this and keeping the majority power firmly in white people’s hands, but as modern world progresses and public awareness of race in America and the increase of people of color in positions of power, white privilege is diminishing. Minorities are catching up to the position that white people have held for centuries in America and its not a feeling they are comfortable with. They are getting scared of losing their position so they begin to lash out in small ways in order to avoid the inevitable calls of racism. It has become common knowledge to many people now that there aren’t any institutions in place specifically for white males. This is because they were thought to be widely favored among colleges and employers so laws were put in place to make the work and school environment a fair and equal place for all people. These laws are now becoming outdated and now they are working against the common good, fairness, and equality or at least that’s what the trend is swinging towards in some people’s eyes. This is the thing that drives movements such as the formation of the new Tea Party which is composed mostly of whites and their views which aren’t all for the advancement of white people but definitely support it. This is something that the older generation sees as a bad thing but the new generation sees the new America as something that is the norm. The older folks see a change happening and are responding to it accordingly. This change is inevitable and will eventually happen until America is truly equal. Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:48:22 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/06/are-whites-racially-oppressed/#IDComment134057967 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/24/is-it-selfish-for-people-in-poverty-to-have-more-kids-because-of-their-lower-income-119-blog/#IDComment130744091 It isn't necessarily selfish to have more kids if you are poor. In the poor community most of life is based on tradition and its very important for people to maintain that tradition. This is in part due to the lack of material things that they have access to and because family plays a huge role in their lives. It is also in their best, some would say, to have lots of kids because they might make something of themselves and lift the family up another class level. Also the large amount of kids will eventually be able to work jobs and bring in more income for the family and together they will be able to bring the whole family to a better spot, at least for the grandchildren in the family. But most people would say they shouldn’t have a lot of children because of the huge financial burden they put on a family and the copious amount of children may drag the family even lower than they already are. Another factor in the poor community is their devotion to their faith. In the Catholic religion there is no contraception allowed so if they want to have sex they always risk pregnancy and if a wife is pregnant then they are out of the workforce for sometime increasing the poverty level in the family. Then again there is always free will and if they want to have sex and have a bunch of kids it is well within their rights to whatever the hell they want. So we can’t with good conscience limit reproduction or family values in the United States, unless we want to end up like China or Japan who limit the population growth. This always leads to sexual preference of boys over girls and therefore more girls will end up in orphanages increasing the cost of taking caring of them and increasing government spending on orphanages. Barring the shift into totalitarian rule in the United States the blame cannot be blamed for having children. It seems logical to us to not have children if we were poor but it is hard for us to put ourselves in their shoes and t experience their shoes because the majority of us haven’t been poor in our lives. Not saying that there aren’t some of you that are poor in the sense that the government proclaims you as below the poverty line. Values are different at different levels of income and it really shows. There even totally different cultures based on income levels. I am of course talking about redneck culture and the high class society culture. There are huge differences in these cultures all caused by income level and so if we are of a higher class we have no room to talk as to how many children people in the poor community to have and if they are to blame or not. Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:11:01 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/24/is-it-selfish-for-people-in-poverty-to-have-more-kids-because-of-their-lower-income-119-blog/#IDComment130744091 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-do-you-feel-about-the-way-people-live-in-america-compared-to-other-places-around-the-world-119-blog/#IDComment128716923 The way we live in America compared to places that are not as well off is in a state of luxury. The world and the world’s economy rely on the inequality of the world to function. There are core states such as the U.S. and Europe rely on the cheap labor that periphery states can provide in order to fuel their consumption. A world in which all are equal will never happen. There will always be countries who have and those who don’t have. In order to have a perfectly equal lifestyle there would need to be a way to have a pure form of Communism and we all know it sounds great on paper but definitely not in practice. It is largely not the fault of the current generation as to why the world the way it is, but it is up to us, the people who have, to make strides to make the world a better place for everyone. We can’t fix the world overnight, we probably can’t fix it completely but it’s worth a shot. Americans shouldn’t feel guilty or feel bad that they live in such great conditions compared to the rest of the world and especially third world countries. We should however use what we have to help others who don’t have. It is our duty as citizens of the world to make it a better place not only for us but for everyone. It isn’t entirely up to us though, it is also up to those people living in poverty to rise up against the forces that are keeping them down and it is then our job to back them up. We shouldn’t be policing the world, however, we should back up righteous causes and movements being created by these peoples. The Democratic movements in the Middle East most notable Tunisia and Egypt need to be supported by the United States in order to provide a better world for all and a flow of new ideas that are so often snuffed out before they have a chance to blossom into possibly world changing ideas. The more we allow this and the more we give people the power and courage to empower themselves the better the world will be. It will be infinitely more productive, there will be many more people who are educated and there will also be many new ideas and movements throughout the world that we currently lack. Things can’t be dominated by the core countries forever and it is up to them now to make the world a more equal place and lessen the gap between the rich and the poor because everyone deserves a good life. And a good life doesn’t necessarily mean a big tv or a big house but whatever makes that person happy. As they say, to each his own. So in retrospect I certainly don’t feel guilt about living in the U.S. as no one should but we should all feel a need to be just and we should all feel that sense of duty. Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:45:03 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-do-you-feel-about-the-way-people-live-in-america-compared-to-other-places-around-the-world-119-blog/#IDComment128716923 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/08/why-dont-we-see-wealthfare/#IDComment127239136 This topic is one that made me really think. I thought about all the things I’ve heard about the economy and the poor and the rich throughout my life and came to a realization that it’s the rich stealing from the poor and giving back to the rich. Now that may be a bit of a hyperbole but it’s true in every sense. The government and the rich people use special words that don’t relate to what the typical American thinks of welfare. In the case of the welfare given to American farmers, they call the welfare “subsidies.” This change of vocabulary makes most people think of it as a good thing. Tax breaks are also a form of welfare, instead of just giving the money to the companies in question they don’t take as much from them as from other companies. A good example of this is tax breaks on oil companies, they get huge tax breaks and they say it is to keep gas prices low and that oil companies are suffering because oil prices are rising and continue to rise. If that was true then why are these companies posting record profits almost every year? The average price of a gallon of gas in the United States is lower than pretty much the entire world minus Middle-Eastern nations who produce the oil we buy. The price of gas in the United Kingdom for example is almost twice what the United States pays per gallon of gas. To most people the idea of a “tax-break” is a good thing, no one likes paying taxes anyway right? This is all just the use of different words to get the different idea in people’s heads. For example the headlines that Sam showed the class about the women getting arrested. The first one convinced the majority of us that she was the victim of racism/discrimination. And the last headline for the same news story convinced the majority of us that she wasn’t the victim of racism. It’s all a matter of wording. As for the view of the poor in the U.S., it is hard to say where exactly the consensus came from that everyone on welfare is poor and lazy. I think it is the idea of a handout and that the media shows people in the welfare line and they all appear to be poor. From a very young age we are all imprinted with this idea that we can be anything we want to be if we just work hard enough at it and when we see the poor all we see is the bad decisions they’ve made or their lack of education or how lazy they are. We don’t see all the predetermined factors in their life. Like maybe they didn’t have to the money to go to college or they were orphaned and bounced around from foster house to foster house their whole lives and never got the chance to hold down a steady job and get life experience. It is a view that in my opinion needs to change and the people of this nation as well as other core nations need to realize that we can’t keep giving to the rich even though its tough to do something about it because the rich control everything. Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:50:48 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/08/why-dont-we-see-wealthfare/#IDComment127239136 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/01/what-is-the-difference-between-a-colored-and-white-comedian-119-blog/#IDComment125827976 The reason minority comedians and white comedians can say different things in front of a crowd is the crowd’s perception of that person’s race. If a white comedian were to come on stage and start saying stuff about his own race, white people, no one would care, except from some of the more extreme liberal or conservative people, and everything would be fine with the crowd. The same goes for the minority comedian, but as a part of the greater minority the crowd allows so much more from them since their race is not just black or Asian or Indian it’s the entirety of racial minorities. It is this idea that allows them to talk freely about anything they want. They have access to so much more material than white comedians (who want to respect the norms of society) but sadly they often rely heavily on this part of their act to keep themselves apart from the white comedians. So in a way it is as much a strategy of the business as it is their own material. To look at it in another light if you think about it as a minority you are exposed to a larger swath of people from all types of background during your childhood. And your childhood is where you get your sense of humor and some of your material from so at a default their act will haven race and an integral part. White comedians typically grow up with other white children but sometimes in the poor communities with other races and in that case they can have race in their acts but not commenting of how each race acts or their differences. And so white comedians are stuck analyzing different parts of everyday life and in combination we get a fine examination of life as we know it and from all walks of life. The way the crowd reacts to racial comedy varies from place to place and will vary from generation to generation. It also depends on the event the comedians are playing at, such as if they are playing at a KKK rally or something and they are a racist comedian racial commentary would go unheeded or even cheered no matter how wrong the person had it or how racist it was. If the same comedian played at the Democratic convention he would be booed off the stage immediately and probably thrown out of the building. It all depends on the crowd and usually the crowd is a mix and doesn’t necessarily contain extremes but very well may. And as a politically correct society and as to not offend anyone else the crowd goes stiff when white comedians start talking about race. Its crap but that’s the way it is and it’s not going to change overnight, but hopefully it will eventually. Fri, 4 Feb 2011 04:18:53 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/01/what-is-the-difference-between-a-colored-and-white-comedian-119-blog/#IDComment125827976 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/why-do-we-need-to-be-politically-correct-119-blog/#IDComment124276822 Blog #2: In today’s professional world it is imperative to be politically correct if one would like to keep their job unless there is a special situation such as Professor Richards which requires him to be politically incorrect at some points. The whole point of being politically correct is to not offend anyone and that is something most people don’t want to do intentionally but sometimes it happens. Political correctness is more of a guideline for people to use in the workplace and in professional situations. In private life it is ok to be politically incorrect amongst close friends and family if it ok between everyone involved. So while at work in or in a professional situation it is not only good manners to be politically correct but job saving. In private life it’s a different story and it is on a by-situation basis. To decide whether or not it is right to restrict people’s right of free speech. There are no laws against being politically incorrect but there isn’t necessarily any freedom in it either. There are risks and repercussions in saying what you want to say using terminology that either may be hurtful or offensive intentionally or unintentionally and that is something everyone must take that into consideration before speaking. Anything that anyone wants to say can be said but it must be thought through very thoroughly if it is going to be in the public eye. It all comes down to morals. It depends on a person’s morals if they want to be politically correct or not. I cannot speak for everyone when it comes to that sort of thing but I think it is safe to assume that most people have positive morals and would be politically correct when it is appropriate to be so. In cases when someone is not they are likely trying to grab or draw attention to what they are saying by rubbing people the wrong way and in that way it is actually a very useful technique. And this has undoubtedly been used in all times to gain recognition for a cause or just for a person who wants to have people listen to what he or she says. So in the end it is important to be politically correct in situations where what is being said is going to be in the public eye especially in this age where the whole world can see something so everyone has a chance to take a gander and be offended so words must be carefully chosen for statements on a national scale. For private situations it is all up to the people you are with and what is ok between all of them and it is really important for everyone to be on the same page. It is always up to the individual to follow the social norms and rules installed by the workforce and the government. Fri, 28 Jan 2011 06:19:25 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/why-do-we-need-to-be-politically-correct-119-blog/#IDComment124276822 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/14/why-do-we-still-have-stereotypes-blog-1/#IDComment124054597 Repost for Blog 1: We still have stereotypes because they are always being reinforced by the media and by friends. It isn't always on purpose either. In my opinion most stereotypes that people have are used by people are to easily get a feeling for a stranger that they might see on the street. Like singing the alphabet song in our heads helps us remember the order of the letters. It is essentially the same process when you look at someone, you see their characteristics and immediately in your head, whether you like it or not, you get an idea about what kind of person they are without even meeting them. If they are well dressed you may assume they are wealthy or something like that. So it isn't even a conscious thought at first. It is up to the individual to take that unconscious thought and elaborate to themselves further than their first impression. Eventually this too becomes an unconscious thought and process and that person's stereotyping is much more under control, so they next time they see a black guy they won't automatically assume he likes fried chicken. Not many people take the time to do this because it requires a conscious effort and most people simply think that they do not believe in the stereotypes if this modern world and don’t act on it. In order for stereotypes to be less prevalent in society they need to be brought to people’s attention and put out in the open. The activity that Professor Richards did in class is an example of that. Especially suicide rate one, I had no idea that young Hispanic women were the most likely to commit suicide or attempt. The question about the percentage of blacks that think their current situation is a result of someone else, the majority of the class put 6% when the actual answer was 56%. This type of exercise puts facts out there that contradict popular stereotypes and it’s this that will lessen the prevalence of stereotypes. Sadly, though, stereotypes will never disappear. They grow and develop as the years go on and the change in culture all around the world. The main source of stereotypes only becomes stronger and wide spread as time goes on. That is the mass media and how culture, through music, television, movies, books, etc. portrays certain racial groups. Take the cartoons of the early 30s and how blacks were portrayed in them. That certainly set up and even amplified the idea of that stereotype. The last source is family and this source will only die out after generations and generations of new thinking takes root in one of these generations. All in all stereotypes will most likely always be around no matter what due to the reasons I explained earlier and if they do eventually disappear it won’t be in our lifetime or even our children’s lifetime Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:32:13 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/14/why-do-we-still-have-stereotypes-blog-1/#IDComment124054597 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/14/why-do-we-still-have-stereotypes-blog-1/#IDComment122620867 We still have stereotypes because they are always being reinforced by the media and by friends. It isn't always on purpose either. In my opinion most stereotypes that people have are used by people are to easily get a feeling for a stranger that they might see on the street. Like singing the alphabet song in our heads helps us remember the order of the letters. It is essentially the same process when you look at someone, you see their characteristics and immediately in your head, whether you like it or not, you get an idea about what kind of person they are without even meeting them. If they are well dressed you may assume they are wealthy or something like that. So it isn't even a conscious thought at first. It is up to the individual to take that unconscious thought and elaborate to themselves further than their first impression. Eventually this too becomes an unconscious thought and process and that person's stereotyping is much more under control, so they next time they see a black guy they won't automatically assume he likes fried chicken. Not many people take the time to do this because it requires a conscious effort and most people simply think that they do not believe in the stereotypes if this modern world and don’t act on it. In order for stereotypes to be less prevalent in society they need to be brought to people’s attention and put out in the open. The activity that Professor Richards did in class is an example of that. Especially suicide rate one, I had no idea that young Hispanic women were the most likely to commit suicide or attempt. The question about the percentage of blacks that think their current situation is a result of someone else, the majority of the class put 6% when the actual answer was 56%. This type of exercise puts facts out there that contradict popular stereotypes and it’s this that will lessen the prevalence of stereotypes. Sadly, though, stereotypes will never disappear. They grow and develop as the years go on and the change in culture all around the world. The main source of stereotypes only becomes stronger and wide spread as time goes on. That is the mass media and how culture, through music, television, movies, books, etc. portrays certain racial groups. Take the cartoons of the early 30s and how blacks were portrayed in them. That certainly set up and even amplified the idea of that stereotype. The last source is family and this source will only die out after generations and generations of new thinking takes root in one of these generations. All in all stereotypes will most likely always be around no matter what due to the reasons I explained earlier and if they do eventually disappear it won’t be in our lifetime or even our children’s lifetime. Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:25:34 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/14/why-do-we-still-have-stereotypes-blog-1/#IDComment122620867 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cm%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment121228921 soc 119 Fri, 14 Jan 2011 05:29:46 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cm%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment121228921