en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2391633 Comments by idkwuttosay http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/10/voices-from-the-classroom-74/#IDComment220120020 The Penn State student community is definitely going through the 5 stages of grief. I feel as if everyone, including myself is going through these stages on an individual basis but it helps to have a student community such as ours where we can communicate across the borders that previously divided us and come to a certain platitude of understanding about the things we are feeling collectively. I personally can recount that during yesterday’s events how tangible each stage felt. The minute news came in about Joe Pattern being fired from Penn State’s head coach position and being unable to coach this Saturday’s game, I remember feeling denial and actually hearing the people I was watching the news with say “It cannot be true.” I would propose that this collective denial roots from the fact that Joe Paterno already released a statement saying he will retire at the end of this season but that we will coach out Saturday’s game and every game subsequent to that. After this stage of denial though, people may go through stages faster or slower than other. Generally speaking though, we saw the manifestation of the Anger phase in last night’s riots. Personally I feel anger still and I am still kind of hoping that some type of bargain where he can coach one last game comes about. I think in the community though, we skipped the bargaining stage and are now in this state of depression. Today’s weather was a personification of what everyone was feeling. I am sure given last night’s hectic events and the fact that nothing changed has left a lot of students feeling powerless and feeling just overall sad. I would propose though that we will reach our Acceptance stage by Saturday when we realize that Joe Paterno is not going to be coaching his last game, nor is he coming back to Penn State. I personally have already reached this stage. Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:53:13 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/10/voices-from-the-classroom-74/#IDComment220120020 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/03/voices-from-the-classroom-65/#IDComment217134200 To begin with, I would speculate that the reason why so many people focus fervently on the costs of legal and illegal immigration is because they are perpetually perceived as society’s “other.” In this sense of the word they have managed to manipulate society’s view of these workers from underdeveloped countries as bogie men to be afraid of. Media and other modes of communication have rooted in the American subconscious that these workers are trying to steal “American” jobs or they’re gang members. I do not mean to assume that everyone perceives them in this fashion but because people as a society do, the collective then tend to reflect misconceptions rooted off from these two emotionally invoking possibilities. From these misconceptions one could draw conclusions or base their opinions on biased statistics that these illegal immigrants contribute nothing to the American economy or culture. The pressing issue at matter here is that, in reality, immigrants legal or illegal contribute a lot to our economy and society. I base my conclusion on what Sam presented in class that vast portions of our agricultural economy rely heavily on the immigrant workforce. So I find it odd that many still harbor misconceptions such as that their experience as a “Hyphenated-American” worker is easier that than of the “average-American.” We seem to forget these terms are very flexible and have been since the beginning of our existence as a nation, thus a collective mixture of races. We have let ourselves come to believe that these documented and undocumented workers are somewhat of a threat because they are tickling the threads of “American” society. As much as I love my country, I have to admit we are no better than the perpetual 4th grade bully. Any threat to our immature pursuit of wealth and power is perceived as bad. In my perception I am but one person who has not had all the evidence in front of me. Not to disregard Sam’s lectures, but I feel as if I might have a different opinion if I was exposed to or presented with the information he has. But who is to say. I cannot pretend to have answers. I definitely see both sides of the argument though. I hope in the future I will be ambitious enough to pursue that knowledge and carve my own opinion. Sat, 5 Nov 2011 04:02:31 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/03/voices-from-the-classroom-65/#IDComment217134200 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/13/voices-from-the-classroom-42/#IDComment213667105 We use racial labels when they are unnecessary because for much the same reason why we use curses. We use them to express ourselves whether that is in anger and frustration. The difference between why we use curses and racial labels is dependent on who or what we are directing our anger towards. If we were wronged or anger with someone who is of a different race or ethnicity, and we feel that they wronged us as a result of them being different we use a racial slur or label. In situations where we would use a racial label such as when we describe our friends as being black or white when that has no bearing on what is happening in the story because we subconsciously believe that it does. If we are describing a situation where something out of the ordinary happens to us or our “black or white friend,” we subconsciously think that that thing that happens to us had to happen to us because we are a certain race or because our friend was a certain ace. I try not to use racial labels unnecessarily, because I hate being categorized or differentiated because of my race. I am simply a person who has had their fair share of cultural and social experiences that shape the way I perceive the world, and whether or not it is different from some people does not concern me. all I know is that I have a certain way of seeing and understanding the world that works for me, and I am always glad to share and listen to what makes my perception different from other people just in the small chance that I will pull something away from their accounts that will stay with me and force me to see myself and my understanding differently. Because I am so passionate about being labeled, I refuse to do it to other people that may result in their inner conflict. Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:48:34 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/13/voices-from-the-classroom-42/#IDComment213667105 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/27/voices-from-the-classroom-57/#IDComment213661607 Since we as Americans have become so engrained in the land that we have seen many generations live and die here, I do not believe that we can just give it back. But it is definitely our responsibility to help the indigenous people reestablish themselves, and we have done a lousy job of that so far. I believe that we have a responsibility to see out by helping the indigenous people reestablish themselves because ultimately this is not our land. We as Americans have to come to the understanding that we brutally fought and callously killed off populations of people to attain the land that we have. We did so under the belief that God entitled us to this land when in reality it was our own self-righteous egos that were telling us to lead whole genocidal campaigns to get this land. I mean some would argue that because we had better technology and were better able to fight the indigenous people off the land, that that gives us a reason to stay here. But just because we have the capacity to kill them all, does not mean we should have. We basically punish the indigenous people for not being smart or ingenious enough to amass the knowledge to create machines whose sole purpose it was to kill. But regardless of what happened in our nation's history, there is no way we can all pick up and leave the land to them now. Besides it being physically impossible it would be illogical. But because we had and have the upper hand over the indigenous people, instead of keeping them down, we should help them reestablish themselves and show some compassion. We could have had an ally in the indigenous people then but let us allow ourselves to establish a healthy relationship with them now. Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:32:14 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/27/voices-from-the-classroom-57/#IDComment213661607 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/20/voices-from-the-classroom-51/#IDComment210745886 I would have to disagree with that idea. Coming from a city like New York, I am constantly being faced with people of different races and groups from different socio-economic statuses, and I would say in my personal experience socio-economic status has more of a binding power than race does. I mean of course there are people out there that will not associate with certain groups or individuals strictly based on race, but in instances where I met let us say a white person in a predominantly black group, or vice versa, it was typically because they came from the same neighborhood or same type of background. At the heart of this issue is the question of how do people socialize and ultimately I would conclude that people are bound together when they have similar interests or have had similar past experience that would predetermine a certain aspect of their personality. Like the strings that Sam talks about in class, they would have had similar experiences with either having been well off or not being so well off that would affect how they acted or how they thought about or saw the world. For people to look at a white kid or hangs with allot of black kids or a black kid that hangs out with a lot of white kids and say that they are a poser, seriously do not have enough world experience to understand the intimate intricacies that bring people together. Again in my personal experience I have met people dozens of people who hang out with groups of mixed or different races, and I can point to one instance where a "white" kid or so I thought he was, changed my ideas about "posers." It turns out that this "white" kid was actually Egyptian and claimed to be more African than anyone. He listened to rap music and was very well attuned to the culture that the group he was associated with could identify with. He truly identified with this group of racially mixed people and it was evident in the way they would socialize. He could hold up conversations about music, girls, sports, and if you asked him he could probably recount some story about living in the hood or how he never had a lot of money. And it is not just the fact that he could hold conversations about these subjects, it was more that he understood how to communicate and say these things in certain ways that would capture his audience's, in this case a group of friends, attention and encapsulate the attitude or worldview that this group held. In my opinion, what makes a poser is someone who tries to be something they are not. What is interesting though is that even if this kid who says he is Egyptian was actually not and actually came from wealth, it would not matter, because he held the worldview and had the attitude that his counterparts had. He would still be able to communicate with them and validate them when needed. But not having that life experience that predetermines all of these intricacies would make it extremely difficult to the point that only someone who had similar life experiences would associate with people of the same realm. Sat, 22 Oct 2011 01:14:07 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/20/voices-from-the-classroom-51/#IDComment210745886 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-23/#IDComment200529168 Being a person of color and one who can readily admit he's experimented with one or 2 drugs, it would affect my decision to use them in the future to some degree. I would be more concerned of what part of the country I was doing them in then. Like if I found myself in the South, where the police force do not take too kindly to strangers, especially one like myself, I would probably refrain from any use. But if i was in a place a little bit more progressive like a major city, I would be less concerned. I find it interesting that drug use among black and brown people are equal too or less then white people but yet we pay the highest price. In the end it only makes sense, I mean police task forces do not target the suburbs for 2 reasons. the first is because they rate of success of capturing someone with illicit drugs would be extremely low. we see how drugs have infiltrated our streets and is even infiltrated suburban areas where drug use among young whites is high. But its easier to capture criminals in destitute, urban areas where the concentration of the drug flow is high, then it is to capture criminals in the suburbs where the drugs have exchanged hands dozens of times. The second reason is because the rate of conviction after capturing drug offenders in suburban areas would be extremely low. I do not want to make too large of an assumption here, but I would go so far as to say most people in the suburbs have family lawyers or at least have the financial capability to hire one, where as residents in urban areas might not. And if the person whose facing a minor drug offense of possession or even intent to distribute, with a proper lawyer, can walk away with a slap on the wrist. More often than not, those who cannot hire their own personal lawyer have to own up to the law to the fullest extent. Because if these two very real reasons in conjunction with fear being promoted through the media, it seems that in today's day and age its easier to paint black and brown people as the bad guys, the boogie men of our society. It makes it easier to look at a random black or brown person and associate that person with criminal acts because most of the time we see a black or brown person on the Wanted posters and on the news and take them into questioning. Wed, 28 Sep 2011 22:21:53 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-23/#IDComment200529168 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/20/everyone-respond-to-this/#IDComment196055428 First off, I want to start off by saying I think its great that Sam Richards is making it a course requirement to get involved in Haiti. Its political and social advocacy at its finest. I find it sad and a little disgusting that my generation is so lazy that often times, when asked, we cannot answer basic questions concerning what is going on around the world. Some people cannot even distinguish the finer points as to what is happening in Africa and the Middle East concerning the political upheavals. Getting involved in something like this just might be the spark that gets a few people truly interested in the global community and the crisis’ that plague it. Second off, I think that people that Sam is having us review are great candidates for any type of financial help. They all have some sort of business plan laid out, where the only way forward is through expansion. Which is exactly what Haiti and its citizens need. They need entrepreneurs who are going to expand and provide employment opportunities so self-determination is possible. I was never one to believe in grass roots and micro financing because I thought in some way or another it would lead to an unhealthy dependency. But after seeing how just even a simple loan to buy a tag maker can change Clarene’s business, got me to believe in its benefits. And it seems that anyone of these entrepreneurs just needs something as simple as one or 2 more employees or even ideas to improve a product, to give their businesses the push it needs to really jump off. Obviously, in today’s global economy, and even in Haiti’s local economy, there is no guarantee of a business’ success but its not just profit that we would be bringing to these people but hope. The hope that one-day things will be back to normal, and all their efforts to rebuild their communities will pay off. And it is these people that are going to do it. They are not looking for handouts, which I think, is key to running a successful business. They just want a loan for things that they think will improve the likelihood of their success to support themselves and their families. Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:24:48 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/20/everyone-respond-to-this/#IDComment196055428 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/08/voices-from-the-classroom-6/#IDComment191726936 I consider President Obama to be multiracial. As he has stated himself, he is half black and half white. But ultimately, his race should not matter. The only thing I pay attention to are his policies and the way in which he carries himself both as a politician and as a human being. It is sad that in this day and age that we as a society hold race in such high regards when questioning the character of a person. When the truth is the character of a person varies from individual to individual and not from race to race. I mean obviously some people feel as though because he is multiracial that he will try to pass legislation that benefits only certain factions of society in which President Obama self identifies or affiliates with. And it is sad to know that those very people are the ones who hounded him to produce his birth certificate, as if his citizenship was falsified because he is multiracial and therefore predestined to lie. I mean lets be real, President Obama would not have made it very far even in local government if we was not a citizen. It’s disappointing to see the outright racism against our nation’s leader, when in reality we should all be supporting our him. And it goes both ways, I recall hearing interviews from black politicians who were voting for him just because he is half black. Sociologically speaking, I understand that their goal in doing so was to inspire the today’s young black males to strive for higher goals instead of adding to our country’s social ills. But when you infantilize a people, you are only ensuring their own failure. Despite opposition he persevered in fine fashion and has worked without rest to accomplish and push his agenda as a leader. Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:13:21 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/08/voices-from-the-classroom-6/#IDComment191726936 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/08/30/double-helix-and-god/#IDComment188326098 I’m typically not a religious person, so hearing that comparison made between God and the double helix was not a test of faith for me. But it did get me thinking about a recent conversation I had had concerning this idea that aliens either transplanted or helped human civilization along and the evidence is endless. All of early man’s conceptualization of their ancient gods, the vessels they traveled in, and the miracles they performed were not just fantasies, but true to life. And based on ancient man’s limited ability to understand or efficiently record what they were experiencing led them to believe that these “beings” were gods. While I am in no way a believer of any of this, it did get me to question whether it was true or not, which of course carries its own implications as to our true purpose as living human beings on Earth. I mean the discovery in modern science of the double helix DNA model is arguably one of the greatest scientific finds of the past century. And its discovery carries with it the possibility that we may someday come to fully understand the genes that make up you and I. But how is it that some random Mesopotamian, coming straight out of the Bronze Age, with not even the slightest idea of what modern science is and what it entails, was able to draw the connection between the concept of Life and this double helix? How is it that some random shaman, completely cut off from the modern world, no idea what modern medicine is, is able to listen to a God that he can only describe it to be a double helix? Its like these “gods” have been giving us the answer and pointing us to the importance of the double helix all along. Now that we are finally able to understand its purpose, are we on the cusp of finding out what makes us human or alien for that matter? Or are we just beginning off the first stepping-stone to discovering our true origins as a species? And if it does turn out that we are all kids of a group of aliens that wanted to reproduce with early man, or they are the gods that our ancient ancestors saw, what does that say about religion then and its purpose in society? If all ancient religion, which offers inspiration to modern day religion, turned out to be the product of perverse alien action and not divine intervention, does that mean that all of religion is just truly a means of coping with death? I always thought so before, and now that an intelligent race of aliens replaces the image of a white man with a long white beard, it makes just that much more sense. Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:58:12 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/08/30/double-helix-and-god/#IDComment188326098 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/lifer/#IDComment143264389 Being given a label is never fun. Even when the label is positive, unless you can consistently display the behaviors of the positive label with ease and without having to consciously do it, which is often not the case, you may find yourself striving to live up to that label. Whether you succeed or not s dependent on other labels others might give you throughout life. Society as conditioned us to be aware of these labels, whether we like it or not. We label others to some degree whether we do it consciously or not; we often have preconceived notions of others based on their appearance or other displayed behaviors from past, non-personal encounters. But the point being brought to the forefront is, being in prison is tough enough. Not everyone who goes to prison has the mental capacity to handle the everyday stressed of being a prisoner, and not everyone who comes out is a hardened criminal either. But labeling them a prisoner is not going to help any of these. The whole idea of accepting the “self looking glass,” and ultimately living up to that label and ascribing to the “self-fulfilling prophecy,” really holds true in any case but especially this one. Labeling an already downtrodden, second-rate citizen as such, only further amplifies their self- defeating attitude, giving them more reason to display attitudes and behaviors that we stereotypically think of when we think of prison and its inhabitants. We may think that if it is politically correct, it is ok to label them as prisoners. But the danger that it poses to society as a whole is much greater than just not labeling them at all. Our society has unjustly equated prisoners to be synonymous with hardened degenerates who like to commit crimes, while it might seem safe for short-term conveniences, in the long run; we do greater harm and lead some prisoners to more crime if we label them. Another problem with unjust labels is that as much as we try not to, we perceive them in a certain light, which then dictates how we act around or treat them. Being it public knowledge, that being a prisoner automatically makes you a second rate citizen, labeling them can automatically influence you to treat them as such, which again can lead to complications. Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:52:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/lifer/#IDComment143264389 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/what-a-man-is/#IDComment143258749 Raised in a house of all women, I learned and have come to witness all these qualities and many more in the best and worst of men. From a young age, I could not tell you how many times I have been told to change my ways in order to prevent being “like every other man,” whether it be from my grandmother, one of my 3 aunts, or my own mother. I have been taught to break down my ideas of traditional gender roles, I can tell the difference between mascara and eyeliner, I know how to cook, iron and clean, I know that PMS is not a word women like to hear (even if they are PMSing). And as far as romance goes, I know the basics and the complexities. I’m not trying to write a book about it or sound braggadocio. Love only comes into the equation when someone places the same values on different aspects of intimacy as taught by society as I do. So what I may do to impress you or put a smile on your face might not be the same for everyone else, only to those who have sociologically been conditioned to be put value in, be impressed by, or smile at the things that I may do. As far as the male state a mind in this society as a whole, I see men seducing and talking to women as if they were prey. Its as if they have a license to hunt and hunting season is 365 days out of the year. I cannot lie and say I have not done the same. But the mindset in which I think this Lifer is trying to convey is that we cannot think women are at our disposal. Music videos and television may try and convince you that they are meat to be served on a platter. Society as a whole, with the traditional gender roles in place, may try to tell you that they are there to serve our needs when we ask. But they are not all these things; they are not things at all. They are the better half of our species, so lets treat them as such. Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:23:18 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/what-a-man-is/#IDComment143258749 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment139195016 I think it silly to believe that organized religion will die out. At least not anytime soon. People need religion. It’s a way for them to get out the house; it gives them the ability to put the blame or the praise unto something outside of their own spheres of influence. Especially in poor and destitute areas, sometimes, religion is all those people have. They go to religion to cope with their already marginalized existences, and they to cope with the day-to-day struggle of living. I mean this is not to say that it will not die out at some point or another. I mean societies change and at some point or another, American society and the global society will have come up with ways for people to focus their energy and attention to. At some point, our global society will o longer need religion to teach the masses, or to impose upon them a set of laws, rules and ethics to keep the masses in line. There will be other ways of doing so. A belief and faith in a creator will be something that will never change or diminish. The rituals surrounding that belief and faith will change and as previously suggested, diminished. I also want to call attention to the fact how we as Americans put so much faith into the statistics being read to us. As in the section of Intersections, these statistics are just statistics, the implications being drawn are from the source of media, in this case the article that is being presented. Just because people are checking boxes saying that they are unaffiliated does not necessarily mean that as a society people are losing faith or not going to church. Maybe as a society, the penchant to go to Sunday Services or doing daily prayers, is not being held in as a high a regard as in previous generations. I mean in my personal case, my mom would ask me every Sunday if I wanted to go to church. On some occasions I would choose yes, but in others I would say no. But that fact is that I don’t think my mother was the only one of her kind. I don’t want to extend this generalization across the board of my generation, but as a whole I think we are a lot more aware of religions purpose and we are often given the opportunity to choose our faith rather then just follow it blindly. As far as people checking “Unaffiliated,” I think this stems from again the idea that people are a lot more aware of religion and the role in plays in their lives. They probably haven’t found a faith or a religion that embodies their own faith and religion and instead not attending any services, they attend services but don’t exactly affiliate themselves with the branch or sect of that religion or faith. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:50:49 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment139195016 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/fear-2/#IDComment137586306 Talk about grey areas. If it were I put into that situation, I probably would have done the same things. This guy’s parents stole his innocence at such a young age, and continuously caused him bodily and emotional harm, that his life was taken away from him long before any court appointed DA got him 2 life sentences. And not to get too involved in this aspect of the case, but I want to point attention to the inherent flaws in the system shown here where he actually tried to reach out and seek help, and no one was there for him. I feel as though, those who ignored this man’s cry for help when he was a child and a teenager and took his parent’s word, who were the ones actually committing the abuse and would lie in anyway to anyone to cover it up, should be sent to jail as well. How neglectful does one have to be? Like even if the kid was lying, the point is to investigate and find out before brushing it under the rug. Now look, he lived 30 years of his life in a fear perpetuated by his parents, a fear that led him to get 2 back-to-back life sentences, when he could have been taken out of that hostile environment by one of the many that ignored his pleas. Not to detract from the fact that this man has committed his crime and is now serving his time. I think he knows his wrong but at the same time, is it really that wrong? When you have your back against the wall in an emotional sense, and even in the most primal sense, instinctively, we as humans are biologically built to strike back. And at the time this man felt as if his only option was to strike back, even if it was a decade or 2 too late, he did and I don’t think anyone would say that they would not do the same. And all I can hope is that this guy is receiving the psychological treatment needed so as he can finally get the tools needed to go through this life that his parents never taught him so that he can be happy about approaching the next life, as opposed to just sitting in his cell, brewing about his past. Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:46:34 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/fear-2/#IDComment137586306 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135451637 Needless to say, Zach Walls, with his ability to form words and sentences together in a powerfully meaningful way, makes a compelling argument for same sex marriage. Marriage in and of itself, being an institution that is not based on love, as discussed in class, but one of practicality, can only be successful with partners who conduct and accomplish lifes tasks in accordance with each others needs and wants. One of lifes tasks most obviously, is reproduction and the raising of its results. To question the ability of a couples ability to raise children based on their sexual orientation is baseless and ridiculous. The video we had seen in class raised a very good point of, any straight couple can fuck, not even make love to each other, which are 2 completely different acts of sexuality, and make a kid. No true effort is necessary in healthy same sex couples to make a child, but the hard part comes in when you need to raise one. With same sex couples who want to adopt, this is all they want. They do not want to partake in the easy but the difficult, mundane, and often-complex act of raising a child. Their desire to do this should show great dedication and be commended beyond all realms of parenthood. Even going through the adoption and artificial insemination process, which in some states is very skeptical of same sex couples, and facing discrimination left and right, I would expect same sex couples to forget about having a kid all in all. But the fact is most same sex couples who make the decision to adopt or artificially inseminate, stick through it all, for various reasons. Some do it to pass on their ideals to a new generation, or just to have something to love and consider their own. But whatever the case, all they want is to have a child and to deny same sex couples the right to marry, and enjoy raising a child can be equated to stopping heterosexual couples from having kids, policing the bedroom, and snatching babies away from new mothers. The images conjured up is not a pretty one, but that is what is going on people doubt the ability of same sex couples to raise a child. And as for Zach Wall, he is a prime example of how any healthy child would turn out raised in a same sex household. Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:18:35 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135451637 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130005502 Being inundated with news reports of kidnappings, abductions, of children being raped and left to die, why wouldn’t we ultimately give our kids bad advice? Seeing more of the same everyday, it makes it more likely in the masses of people that watch the news that something like this would happen. As a child of a Latino family living in a place that was strange and new to them, I was taught to never trust strangers of any kind and never get into a strangers car, and I always thought it was because my grandparents and parents were old school that they taught me these rules. As I grew up, I realized a lot of my friends were taught the same thing. Only until I reached an age at which I could decipher which people looked more approachable then those who did not, did I realize the fallacy that my parents’ belief operated under. But the fact is, as an adult with his own children, I would probably teach my kids some of the same things. I would tell them to always be within ear shot, always be in my sight, hold my hand when walking in a crowded place and scream something along the lines of “This is not my daddy/mommy!,” if someone tried to grab them. And instead of letting them figure out on their own which people to approach for help, I would teach them that at a young age. So in any case, if they found themselves in that situation of being lost, that they knew which individual to approach. Of course this process of learning would not follow very strict guidelines because kidnappers and crazy people come in all shapes and sizes, but I would teach them to definitely avoid the man talking to himself or the homeless woman pushing a cart, wearing the military uniforms of her veteran sons. But I would assure them that in most cases to feel free to tell a stranger that they lost me and do not wait for someone to come to you to help you. I would make them memorize my number, my spouse’s number, and just for good measure the house number. Probably the best thing to do was to explain my reasons for telling them to do these things, just so they did not think I was being naïve. And even then, I would only take these precautions as a measure to be better safe than sorry. Why raise the risk of my child being abducted by not holding his/her hand or by not teaching them to approach a random on the street, if it meant them being back under my protection and care quicker? Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:57:22 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130005502 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/15/social-structure-shapes-free-will/#IDComment128270324 In terms of practicality, which terms of this video, is described as the need for sustainability for multiple siblings, it makes sense to have 1 wife for 3 brothers so as not one brother, probably the oldest, can claim the land for his family, rather they can share it and ensure that they all can live off the land. It is a little daunting to know that in a few generations that this way of life will soon diminish, in spite of the fact that their is less availability of resources for these people to sustain themselves with. This is going to force a whole bunch of these families whose heritage and family line has lived on those lands for years, to move to major cities to find work. which can cause problems in and of itself for those individuals of this group and for those who have to welcome these farmers and introduce them to manual labor of a different kind. In terms on the situation concerning the huge disparity between men and women in China, it seems likely that they might resort to this practice of polygamy, but for different reasons. They might just want the opportunity to raise children of their own, and if they are all of the same mother and being around their "uncles," the stigma of raising a girl instead of a boy, will lessen, considering the the boys will be more motivated to make money and provide resources to sustain their family which encompasses this "abnormal (in westerner's minds)" extension of family. But then again, they might not resort to that. it would be a long up hill battle to have that these practices but in place because it would not be one put in place out of necessity but rather convenience for the parents. Perhaps, instead of marrying and reproducing with one woman, a Chinese man may want to resort to marrying outside of the Chinese culture, a little out of the question yes, but still a possibility. this next suggestion may just be the result of my ignorance to the legislation in place, but if their is not a clause demanding that all parents be married, perhaps men can hire and pay concubines to carry their children, they can receive a government official registration certificate proving competence of a single parent to provide for this child. But either way, this course of action would ultimately change the way in which the Chinese people socialize, perhaps for the worst in terms of having this sex competitive, concubine empowering, interaction amongst people which would do all to affect the people whose culture operates under this family loyal rhetoric and communication. Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:11:02 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/15/social-structure-shapes-free-will/#IDComment128270324 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127461603 So just to start off, this guy wants to help create some sort of Utopia. The problem with doing so is that, there must not be pain and suffering or the prospect of death for that matter. That being a scarce possibility, he goes onto explain to in order to get some degree of Utopia, the entire human race must recognize it as such, that we are all humans. The dividing lines that separate “us” from “them,” and all the benefits or disadvantages there are being on either side of this imaginary line, should not be recognized as such. Our communities as we see them, whether by race, gender, sexual orientation, and national identity are all social abstractions that we created either by geography or out of convenience. But we should recognize these imaginary lines as flexible, not just past geography, race, sexual orientation, gender and national identity, but also to this global “biosphere” that he speaks of. The difficulty in doing so is that these lines are usually set up out of convenience to separate people from other just like themselves for whatever reason. They find something different about a group of people and feel the need to define the difference, either out of exclusion of an “alien” group or to protect their own self-interests. I for one have noticed this difficulty and have combated it with relative success. I have groups of friends of different backgrounds. And not to sound too idealistic, but I am very accepting of everyone as long as they are accepting of me. It is hard not to reject a person who rejected you first. And this point it seems, to me that what he is asking for is for us to be loving of every stranger we meet, the problem with that is that even if we had one more person like that in the world, we would have 2 Mahatma Ghandis in history. But in reality, while this request looks to be a daunting task, it is not as hard we think. We achieve this ideal of acceptance by simply broadening our horizons and learning more of people in general. If there is ever a time when someone rejects you in terms of social interaction, do not look for revenge or rejection back, but move on. Their sphere of sociological influence, unless composed of other close minded people as well, which makes it even more impossible for their spheres of sociological influence to not contain someone with the same type of agenda, can be “infiltrated.” By looking for people who value human experience and realize that to do so, you must be open to dialogues amongst people that are quite different from you. But by valuing human life, you move from caring just for yourself and those that are immediately around you, in other words your imagined community, and caring for everyone equally. Sat, 12 Feb 2011 02:58:40 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127461603 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment126013792 While at first glance, this video just seems to be a funny social experiment, one in which we can poke fun at the dopes who actually go through the trouble of shifting themselves around and around in order to feel more comfortable, it does shed alot of light on the invisible forces that social constructions and social circumstances that compel us to be at the whim of group thinking. Being a person who has always been aware of this confluence of social forces that shape and drive us, I have always thought it funny of how petty our attempts can be. While at the same time I can appreciate as to why these social norms and the effects of group thinking can ultimately be beneficial too society. For example, while riding the MTA subway in New York City, there is a type of guidelines as to choosing which seats to sit in, and depending on how big you are. You always have to choose the ends seats first, if those are taken your supposed to fill up the space in the middle while keeping equidistant to your neighbors, and move over appropriately for those who want to sit next to you. It proves beneficial when you take into account the high rate of homelessness in New York City, and being that the subway system offers free heat during the winter for only 2.50$, it makes sense that they would ride the train, but in order to avoid sitting to close to one for the simple fact of their malodor, or anyone without easy access to a shower, these guidelines help one keep a safe and comfortable distance from everyone. But in certain cases such as one of Joshua Bell, the famous violinist whose video we watched in class, I would typically be the one to stop and listen, not because I recognized but because I am socially constructed through experience to appreciate art in its purest form. I enjoy being the first one to congregate a crowd around, helping a young artist at his/her roots, and if I fail at doing so, I was still able to enjoy something amazing in its essence. But incases such as the elevator, it is funny to see how social forces drive certain behaviors that seem abnormal from the outside, but when put in the situation, we either hesitate and conform one way or the other, or we conform without a doubt. In a more real sense, these confluence of social forces can either disclaim or prove as to why extraordinary behavior such as bravery in the eyes of danger, and neuroticism as a social abstraction can either be honored or punished. Like in the case of Kitty Genovese, that type of group thinking was horrible and cost a womans life, but if someone at stepped out of that, he would have been honored. Group thinking and its effects offer a complexity so infinite that its operation in society is so interesting to observe and predict. Fri, 4 Feb 2011 23:18:59 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment126013792 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/i-too-am-free/#IDComment124418401 I know a bunch of people probably wrote about this guy and this same story just because if I thought of it, there has to be at least one other or a few other people who have experienced the same sociological forces that would incline them to take the class they I read it in, or to write about it if they read it of their own accord, but here it goes. In David Foster Wallace's speech This Is Water, he describes a setting where 2 fish are swimming along, another fish swims up to them and asks them" How's the water today?" and then he swims off with no response or explanation. The 2 original fish look at each other and ask " What the hell is water?" So going off from there, it is easy to say that these 2 fish have take for granted the very thing that gives them life because they have no concept of it. The water they swim in has become so common place that they swim, eat and defecate in it with no qualms or no curiosity about what it is, only an apathetic attitude that they live in something that surrounds them but they can see it or even sense it for that matter. Can't the same just be said about humans or human experience? As this man points out, many of us who are free take it for granted. We don't truly realize how free we are until we are put in a situation such as receiving a life sentence, and from there we get to come to terms with what we just lost. And what I appreciate is how this man shares with us his own experience in his loss of freedom and in a way warns us of this apathetic attitude that so many of us share, much like the fish, that ultimately might lead us to considerably lesser degree of life. Because when we do harbor this apathetic attitude where we don't wish to explore our physical surroundings, and we don't systematically question and analyze the experiences that we are free to have, we find ourselves dream walking in our waking life, asleep in life's waiting room, living life unconsciously. In more ways then one, this man has reached a level of understanding of himself and his life that in a way has earned his freedom. If he were out of jail now, he would be your run of the mill Renaissance man, exploring, poking around, never wanting to get boxed in, and not clumsily and irresponsibly the way some of us do, but with a sort of confidence. And it is sad to know that he had to go to jail to come to this epiphany or this affirmation of life and freedom, but to the rest of us, we should heed this warning. Don't go sleep walking in your waking life, because you might just end up wake walking through your dreams and missing out on the opportunity of a life time: living life fully, transcending those sociological ties that metaphysically bind us to certain types of thinking and behavior,and ultimately feeling good about life. Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:00:20 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/i-too-am-free/#IDComment124418401 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cp%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment123492898 soc 001 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:42:58 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cp%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment123492898