Reaction to "Is that Video Game Programming You"

I rather enjoyed this reading, it was nice to see a published argument rebutting all of the criticism in violent video games. Also, John Misak has opinions about video games, as a construct and as an industry, that are very similar to mine. I too believe that violent video games do not lead to violent videogamers. Considering how many people play violent video games, if the violence in video games did spill into real life, wouldn't we live in mass chaos right now? If it was common for people to play first-person shooter video games and then go out and shoot real people as well, wouldn't there have been a massive spike in irrational rampages and gun killings?

What really causes events like the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other shootings is not video games or violent movies or any other media, what causes these events are deep-seeded societal, personal, and mental and emotional problems. It takes a completely different mindset to kill people's characters in a video game, which the player knows will "respawn" and come back to life, than it takes to go out and actually end a human being's life.

I believe that those who fight against violent video games should stop focusing on the video games themselves and focus on the deeper issues at hand that cause events like Columbine. If the same energy that is focused against video games was applied to providing counseling to youth, stricter gun laws, and other such tangible things, the number lives saved to could be astounding. Parenting also becomes an issue here, if a parent lets their child play Grand Theft Auto at age 10, should they really be surprised if their kid begins disrespecting women, pretending to shoot police, and thinking about stealing cars? Video games that are rated "Teen" should probably only be played by young teens and pre-teens, "Mature" rated games should only be played by older teenagers and young adults - that is why the rating system is in place, just like in film, TV, and music. Video games are not the problem, people are the problem. Maybe parents should stop blaming video games for their own failures in parenting. Maybe the "watchdogs" should look out more for societal factors that lead to youth violence, not the games that the youth plays for unrealistic fun. Maybe. Maybe.

Reaction to "The Hurt and Betrayed Son"

First of all, this is probably the most in-depth analysis of Rambo that has ever been done. He certainly makes some strong points about what the lack of a father figure can cause a child, as well as about masculinity in society. I will admit that because I have not read the book version of the story, and because I haven't seen the movie in probably five years, some aspects of this essay were hard to follow. I got it for the most part, but without a context to place some of these characters (besides, of course, John Rambo himself), I got somewhat lost. I have also not read The Brotherhood of Rose, or anything by Steven King, which didn't help either.

One of the main focuses of the whole essay is about different paternal relationships of characters throughout the novel and movie. He gets rather deep with this and connects a lot of characters together via a paternal relationship. I believe that David Morrell intended for many of these in his novels, but perhaps not all of them. I have heard a lot of things about the lack of a father figure in one's life and these include: a greater chance for substance addiction, a more reckless, violent nature, and deep-seeded emotional issues. Robinson touches on all of these during the essay - Rambo used pills as an escape, was obviously fairly reckless and violent, and definitely had deep-seeded emotional problems.

I think the other biggest focus was that of the male image that must be maintained in society. Males are conditioned to believe that showing emotion is a sign of weakness, and we must always be "playing defense" against society and others. It is very powerful to think about the last scene of First Blood with Trautman holding Rambo, who is crying and expressing emotions - a big no-no in society - and proceeds to blow his brains out with a shotgun. This is very representative of our society as a whole and the differences between mothers and fathers, and males and females. Robinson really does make some interesting points.

Note: This is a very deep essay that has so much information and opinions in it that it would take me quite some time to really analyze and react to it well.

Reaction to "Listening and Learning"

Deborah Tannen points out some very interesting linguistic phenomenons in this chapter. I guess I have been aware of some of the gender-specific communication differences that she discusses, but I've never really thought of them like she does. I also liked that she didn't really blame either sex for the current asymmetrical communication situation. She did not blame it on men being overly oppressive or women being too submissive, she instead gave rational reasons behind the phenomenon and gave solutions designed to improve understanding, not completely change social communicative structures.

As I read "Listening and Learning," I thought of specific conversations that I have had with friends, acquaintances, and strangers, and how these have fit in to the specific ideas that she presents. I know that I can think of conversations that I have had with females in which they did just what Tannen describes - they added plenty of "yeahs" and "uh-huhs" as I spoke, even though they may not have been in agreement with me, but rather they may have just been acknowledging that they followed what I was saying. I suppose I never really thought about this phenomenon and how males usually only say "yeah" and "uh-huh" when they are in agreement with you. I have also had experiences where I was kind of giving a "lecture" to a girl, without even really intending to. I have also been the recipient of such lecture from someone older or in a higher position than me. I never really connected all this with the more competitive nature of males versus the more non-confrontational nature of females, but this chapter is very good at pointing that out.

I agree with the points she makes for the most part. I feel as though it is incredibly common to hear guys saying "I just don't understand women," and it is just as common for women to say "I just don't understand men." I must agree with this; I know that there have been multiple ocassions when I have misinterpreted a girl's intention or main point, even though I was convinced that I had her message completely figured out. This is where the final section of Tannen's chapter comes into play - she points out that we should take into consideration how each sex communicates, and try to understand their communications through this. If I understand that a girl is not going to be competing with me like another guy would be, I can better understand her. Women may also understand that it is okay to interject in a conversation and add to or alter it, and men are fine with this. This was a very educational reading, and I think it will help me, at least somewhat, in my future communications.

Reaction to "Homade Education"

I enjoyed this piece by Malcolm X. I too place high value on the idea of self-teaching and learning outside of a classroom. This is partially influenced by my prospective career field, which requires constantly learning new systems and technologies, but it also stems from my early childhood where my parents valued on stimulating and educational discussions and events. Malcolm's affinity for self-education stemmed more from his religious rebirth, and from being incarcerated for a fairly long period of time.

His story is a rather incredible one as he went from a thief on the streets to one of the main leaders of the Black Muslim and civil rights movements. Prison gave him a unique opportunity to have an excessive amount of idle time. Possessing only an eighth grade education going into prison, he was able to educate himself so well that upon his release he was able to speak and write like someone with a high college degree. This just goes to show that a formal education is not a necessity for one one to be knowledgeable and intelligent. I would argue that a college degree does not really mean as much as as our society asserts that it does. A college degree just means that you passed enough classes to earn a title and a piece of paper, but it does not measure one's intelligence level and is not necessary to be intelligent, they are not dependent on one another. People like Malcolm X have showed this in the past and people continue to show this today.

I feel that Malcolm X is often misrepresented in society today. He is often portrayed as an overly violent extremist who spurred violent racial confrontations. While there were some points that he stuck to that I disagree with (such as his early assertion that no white person could contribute to the fight for equality, which he was beginning to change his mind towards before being assassinated), he made many logical points and was always incredibly articulate in his arguments. In one of his more famous speeches, he argues that self defense is a basic, logical human instinct and that if someone is being attacked physically or mentally, as all black people of the time were in some form at the time, that their violent response is not violence at all, but self-defense. Though Martin Luther King's peaceful protest strategy was probably more effective and that Malcolm X's strategy somewhat reaffirmed, in some people's eyes, the stereotype of the "Brutal Black Buck" and the inherent violent nature of African Americans (which is of course a fallacy), it still contributed significantly to the civil rights movement and rallied African Americans together.

Reaction to "r u Online"

I found this reading very interesting because it directly relates to my generation's internet/texting vernacular, which I myself use on a fairly frequent basis. It focuses primarily on instant messaging and text messaging and the new vocabulary that has been created to save on time and text character use. The article points out the different interpretations of this phenomenon - whether it is dangerous to literacy and grammar as we know it, or if it is just a fairly harmless, 21st century form of slang; I would argue for the latter. Though this internet lingo breaks just about every grammatical rule, this is not an issue as long as the users of the lingo still know proper grammar, which is taught in the classroom, not in an instant messenger.

Just as people speak differently depending on where they are and who they are talking to, this shortened text syntax has its own place and use. When I am chatting with someone online I use informal writing and abreviations, but I know that I can't use this same style of writing in academic papers or other formal pieces of writing. I think this is the key to this whole issue - whether or not our generation understands when to use this grammar and when to use formal grammar, and I think that for the most part our generation does a prettty good job.

The use of this "Net Lingo" is also rather subjective and differs greatly on a person to person basis. The boy who is used to exemplify the points of the article seems to almost be an extreme user of this lingo. I too multitask like crazy and I think that a very interesting point that the article makes is in regard to our generation's ever dwindling attention span (of which I am certainly an example), but I don't think I have ever had 20 instant messaging conversations at once, nonetheless do so frequently. He also uses some phrases that I have never used, and many that I try to avoid. A very common example is "lol," a phrased originally intended to indicate laughter, but one that has been degraded so much that is seems to be used after every statement in a conversation - even if there was never any laughter or even anything legitimately humorous about the topic. I personally try to avoid cliche phrases like lol (if I want to indicate humor, I am fine with adding one more character and typing "haha"), omg (unless I'm feeling satirical and using it in a way as to poke fun at the rediculousness of the acronym), and ttyl (I find that if I have had a conversation with someone, I can at least write out some form of goodbye). This is not to say that I don't use net lingo, I do rather frequently, but I use it within reason and try to keep some form of normal dialect in my conversations, and this, along with where to use it, is the key.

A Reaction to "Spanish Lessons"

Christine Marin's essay describes her cultural and linguistic journey that she went through in being born into a Mexican-American family. It was interesting to read that her parents did not teach her Spanish and instead told her to focus on being as fluent in English as possible. Her family made this decision because they believed that it would help protect her from racism and discrimination. What is interesting is that Christine really didn't even think about the Spanish language, it was practically as foreign to her as it was to other "Anglo" children her age. It was not until later in life did she actually realize the power of her heritage

Also, even though she was raised without learning her parents' native tongue, there was no escaping her ethnic identity. As she pointed out with the events on the band bus, her singing in Spanish, even along with "white" girls, led other children to categorize her as different and unamerican. Even with her upbringing, there was no way to change her ancestry. It was also interesting how her focus on mastering the English language somewhat backfired in college. The fact that a college professor would not even believe that she had written what she turned in because it was "too good" for someone who was Mexican-American is appalling.

I think the main theme of the essay was the value of knowing and appreciating one's heritage and all of the opportunities our unique family histories and languages can present. By embracing her heritage, Christine was able to become a significant Arizona State University library bibliographer, and an adjunct professor in women's studies at the same university. It is important that we not only accept our differences, but capitalize and maximize them. It is each human being's uniqueness and individuality that makes for a stimulating and unpredictable human existence. Language is one of the great cultural differences that exists in the world. Marin states in her last sentence "From the back of the bus to the ivory tower, I have learned the power of language." She is a prime example of someone who capitalized on their heritage and language and celebrated their own unique differences.

A Reaction to "Lost in Translation" (An excerpt from Goshgarian's "Exploring Language," not the movie.

This reading was certainly at a higher level than any of the previous ones. I understood every word of the text except one - recalcitrant. I had a general idea for what it meant based on how it was used in the second paragraph, but after looking it up I learned that the exact definition is: 1. obstinately defiant of authority or restraint; and 2. difficult to manage or operate; not responsive to treatment. This is essentially what I figured it meant given the context, but it's nice to be sure.

I do find the work that the linguists in the piece were doing. I think it is important to document and record languages that are going extinct so they can be preserved. As the reading points out, the cultural history of tribes and cultures is preserved in their language and therefore a language must be preserved in order to best preserve a culture.

What I do disagree with is imploring vast amounts of resources (money, time, labor) in order to keep a language from going extinct. The bias of the author was fairly apparent - she and the linguists that she focused on felt that it was important to keep languages alive, even at high costs. Though I believe that this is a noble stance, I don't think that it is the best use of funds and resources that could be devoted to other causes. Yes, it is a shame that these languages are going extinct, but linguist evolution is going to be unavoidable with the ever increasing globalization of cultures and economies. She added the stance of other linguists who see the death of a language as a Darwinian process, and I agree with this. As the various cultures of the world become more and more interconnected, an increased universality of many different cultural mainstays, including language, will take place.

I also found the influence of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union on the demise of Chuylim to be rather interesting. Though I can see reasons for a public education, prohibiting Chuylim and other Siberian children from speaking their native tongue was too harsh and certainly reflects the Soviet Union's political sentiments. The village consolidation program was also morally wrong, but unfortunately the past cannot be changed and, barring any unforseen influx of funds and resources, the Chuylim language appears to be nearing its end.

Defining Critical Reading

I believe that being a critical reader means being an active, rather than a passive reader. You don't just read something on "autopilot," you actually think about and agree or disagree with what you are reading.

Reading and thinking critically are important in developing self-identity and personal views. Reading and thinking this way is also important when being presented with information in the many different forms that exist today. It is important to be able to distinguish between important and pointless information, as well as truthful and biased information.

The three techniques that I found to be most important in the writing were questioning, analyzing, and summarizing what you read. I believe that it is important to question and not blindly believe what you are writing. I also believe that when writing you should be analyzing the author's intentions, and how information is presented. Summarizing is incredibly important in understanding the main point of a piece of writing (or any other media); one has to be able to discern the main ideas of a piece and narrow them down.

I have used all of these in the past, and I often employ all of them while reading just about everything, without even really being conscious of it.

When I read I will usually look up similar information to what is being presented in the writing. I may see one word or topic in a piece of writing and do some quick research about it (wikipedia) and come back to it.