For this post, I’ve chosen to dissect the website and the foundation that is the Susan G. Komen foundation. This probably sounds pretty terrible. But, hear me out.
I very much support what the Susan G. Komen foundation claims to support, but my issue is that they don’t really support the cure for breast cancer.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation has fixed a lot of the problems that they originally came under fire for, but everyone can fix problems that they lose business over. Here’s the thing; there’s a LOT of problems with this organization.
Firstly, they ignored the wants and the feelings of women with metastatic breast cancer for YEARS. Metastatic breast cancer means that these women were diagnosed late stage and will almost definitely die from this disease. There is now a huge, bold-lettered tab on their website as soon as you click on it, just to drive the point home that they SUPPORT EVERYONE!!! This just isn’t the case. They went a long time without caring about these women. They get to walk into stores and see shelves upon shelves of items with pink ribbons on them, knowing that they can’t fight this because there’s nothing to fight. Their body is cancer and they know there’s no winning of a fight. They have to feel that pain and see the praising of women who “bravely beat their fight” and know that they will never be “the brave one.”
Next is a problem that I mentioned above, but for a different reason. The Susan G. Komen Foundation loves to plaster pink ribbons and paint every product pink as much as possible. A lot of people feel like this exploits breast cancer for profit because people want to “support” the cause by buying the product, but really only a couple cents goes towards actual breast cancer research or funding out of even the most expensive products. People call this action “pink washing,” and it causes a lot of animosity among both breast cancer survivors and people without breast cancer. The use of these ribbons on everything is inappropriate and a cash grab.
Finally, the biggest problem of all. The Susan G. Komen Foundation cut funding in 2012 through Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings and outreach programs. They quickly reversed this decision due to backlash, but this decision goes hand in hand with why many people refuse to donate to the fund. The CEO of the Susan G. Komen made $684,000 a year (in 2014). The executive members of the foundation make enough money and due to their donation records, 20% of their profits go to critical research and the rest goes to these members’ salaries. So, all of their pink washing profits that supposedly go to research, are simply lining pockets of a CEO who is most likely making upwards of a million dollars a year these days. It’s disgusting.
This organization takes advantage of their audience and lies to them every chance they get, while neglecting to be considerate of members of their target benefactors. It needs to end and it needs to be exposed.
There are multiple reasons that a parent’s income should not determine a child’s federal help with college, including, but not limited to, lack of help from that parent and other factors interfering with allocation of money. I will be doing my persuasive essay on the topic of FAFSA (the federal and financial student aid) and why parents incomes should not factor into how much a student receives in aid for higher education.
A person’s career as a student lives or dies by financial aid. It’s not right that this factor can be interfered with by someone else’s finances, when for all the federal government knows, that parent is not helping the student at all for a multitude of reasons, which I will delve into within the paper, as well as other factors as to why this rule is archaic and unfair.
I’m personally intrigued by this because it is something that affects me generally, but also I am in a situation where my parents’ income has nothing to do with my aid and my college costs.
It’s something I hear about often, and from tons of students. It affects most people and it’s not something changing in the near future. It’s not talked about enough and I would like to take a chance at changing minds, even if it’s only a few people.
In this comment thread, there is a discussion about the barbaric nature of the holocaust and seemingly whether the holocaust is excused because there has been barbaric treatment of people all around the world and throughout time, and also discussing whether history was recorded correctly as ‘the victors recorded the the history of this war.’
I would say that the thread starts off relatively well-spirited and pretty deliberative as opposed to debate at all. They simply discuss the situation in real world culture today and why someone thinks it’s slightly different, due to the organization of the mass murder performed on a specific group of people, as opposed to just randomized mass killings.
Then, one reader comments the word “nonsense,” with little to no context for the comment. However, the thread still stays relatively upbeat with people just questioning the seemingly out of place comment and saying that the earlier comments of it happening all over the world do not justify it, with one person responding to the nonsense comment saying that this was exactly what the Nazis were doing at this time.
Still, the tone stays deliberative rather than argumentative or debatable. The comments take a turn, however, when the original commenter that the “nonsense” was aimed at returned to debate the comment by minority attacking the “nonsense” commenter. She goes on to explain politely why she believes that it isn’t nonsense, and that everything from this time period was recorded and is now part of our world’s history. She becomes slightly argumentative again at the end by saying that the nonsense commenter may have wanted this to false, or untrue, but it doesn’t work that way when it’s in the history books. It has a more argumentative tone reminiscent of a debate here, rather than conversation or deliberation. This is one of the last comments in the thread and certainly not a great tone to move towards the end on.
The “nonsense” commenter does reappear, however, and state that history was recorded by the victors of the war, and this means history isn’t necessarily true as it could be winner’s bias. They give examples as tho why this may be true and why they believe what they believe. It does have a slight hint of a tone resembling a debate tone, but overall, it seems to just be conversation or informing someone, rather than arguing. Whether I agree with the intent of the comment or not, I do think this commenter responded relatively well to the tone of the former comment to them.The thread simply ends with a different party simply saying “so that excuses it.” This seems to just question the comment above but with more attitude, implying a debate persona, as opposed to a simply conversation or deliberation tone of voice for the comment.
Overall, it does seem like the most part of this comment thread is deliberation, not argument or debate tones of voice, with the exception of two or three comments. I think this was a good conversation between this commenters and a great example of discussion without animosity, for the most part.
This bumper sticker, sold online in many different designs, is a really good example of a specific viewpoint. That viewpoint being, save the Earth!!!!
The logos in this is really strong, I think. It appeals to what many people already know, Earth is the only planet we’ve got, so start doing your part to save it.
This is a really wise approach to this type of argument, and it evokes both knowledge and emotion.
I think that the idea of no plan, or planet, b for everyone on Earth is really striking, and would really set in for a lot of people that see this. It suggests a commonplace of panic, and refugee and needing safety, I believe.
I think this is a really strong message and a really strong way to convey it. It evokes emotion, knowledge, and it reaches a wide amount of people by being on the back of a car. If only a 100 or so people had these in every city, the message would be fairly widespread.
There’s no guessing games with what this means; it can’t easily be misconstrued or confused. It’s simple, clear, and to the point.
For my paradigm shift essay/TED talk speech, I will be taking a look at the attitude of Americans towards immigrants and how this attitude has evolved over time.
One of the most infamous sites of immigration was Ellis Island, and many of my friend’s grandparents or great-grandparent’s travelled through Ellis Island into America. The reception of these immigrants, so I have been taught, was that they were welcomed with open arms.
As most of us know, immigrants are not quite as welcomed into America anymore by its inhabitants.
This shift in attitude is very interesting to me, and I am excited to take a closer look into why this attitude shifted so drastically.
So, we’ve all seen a super weird skittles commercial before. They have ones where people puke skittles, two teens baby-birding skittles, or skittle chicken pox. I think most would agree they’re just flat out weird and disturbing.
So, what does this mean? Well, I think it firstly means that their PR team is on crack and truly are not testing these commercials before airing them. However, I think they also view this as a piece of “all publicity is good publicity,” and I think many would agree that this is NOT the case. But people are talking about it, right? THEY’RE MAKING FUN OF IT. THEY’RE DISTURBED BY IT.
The visuals of this is honestly scary and I would say a lot of people don’t feel like they want to buy skittles after watching this.
Overall, it’s just a mess of a commercial. The dialogue is also a mess and also makes fun of a somewhat important issue. So it’s a wreck. There isn’t much else to say then it’s a WRECK.
This commercial is something that my sister would die laughing at any time it was on during the year that it ran, and when the prompt said attention-getting, I figured this really nailed that direction.
So, why do I think this works? Well Let’s get into the ethos, logos, and pathos of it all.
Logos: I think talking about this commercial’s level of logic is slightly ridiculous, and I don’t really believe that it applies to a silly commercial like this. So, I don’t know if this is allowed, but I’m going to conclude that this commercial does not fit the logos side of things.
Ethos: I think ethos actually kind of works because the positive and entertaining nature of the cow and the annoyance of the family, as well as not the believability of the situation but how one would feel in the situation, i.e. the family’s annoyance.
Pathos: Pathos is the one that makes the most sense, I think, because pathos is the emotional appeal. The emotional appeal of happiness and joy through the laughter and humor this commercial brings is a really strong advertising tactic. Enjoyable and funny commercials are very popular and talked about, like this one was when it aired, and the ‘publicity’ brings money. I think pathos is super effective in this regard.
Overall, I think that even though logos and ethos are lacking a bit, the pathos carries the commercial enough that it’s still persuasive and works as an advertisement.
So today, friends, we have a topic that I find particularly infuriating and confusing. Social media and the use of smartphones among GenZ! Strap in, folks.
I find myself reading our assigned article, a truthfully insightful piece by Jean M. Twenge about smartphones ruining a generation. Now, truthfully, I heard the title of the piece and immediately cringed. Ugh, no, they haven’t, people just like to be mad at today’s kids. HOWEVER, I say that for me, not for all of GenZ, and the article really made me think.
Twenge talks of depression, being alienated and uninterested in family conversation, and all of the wonderful lows of social media and smartphones. Let’s dive in, shall we?
Do I think smartphones have ruined a generation? NO,,,,,yes… well, maybe?
This is why I’m mad! This article made me rethink everything. I have said that today’s kids are rude because of social media and the lack of manners portrayed by such insightful figures as Jake Paul and his utter hate for, wait, teachers? Yeah, and I think it only grows. But attitude aside, what about depression and alienation?
Well, here’s the thing. Personally, I like to identify with, well, not GenZ, or rather, people born beyond the 90’s. I’m aware that’s not how it works, but I truly feel that children born in 2004 and on are much different than those of us in that weird period of late 1999 to 2003 (AT MOST). I relate to 90’s kids more. I think a lot of this has to do with our separation from technology. We did grow up with technology, but I think all of us in that weird gap had an unacknowledged separation from technology until, what I can remember, was the 4th grade. This is still early, yes, but it gave us time to still be kids. I still played mermaids in the pool, and cops and robbers or spy at recess. We were still kids.
In terms of alienation, I don’t think that this holds true for what I’m defining as the gap kids (1999-2003). The gap kids, in my experience, are generally close with their parents and family, and interested in the conversation. Do we enjoy time to ourselves? Yes, but didn’t all generations? Wasn’t that the point of drive-ins, and school dances, and simply just hanging out with friends? Everyone enjoys alone time, or relaxed time with friends, away from parents and what is usually big bad serious conversation. I don’t find that the gap kids are as alienated as Twenge or the statistics seems to believe, but I can’t speak for the entirety of a generation.
The one thing in this article that really made me think, however, is depression. Everywhere on social media, you see jokes, or maybe non-jokes, about wanting to die, being depressed, crying, and just generally being miserable in life. I think this trend has many factors to it and can’t be defined to simply one reason, but I do think a lack of ‘hanging out’ contributes greatly.
Speaking from personal experience, high school can be really lonely when you don’t get invited out but you see all of your friends out and about, enjoying life. I think sitting inside all the time can cause a sever plummet in mood and personality, and contribute to depression the same way dark and dreary weather does. You’re inside, you’re sad, you feel alienated by friends; you feel alone. Even with a phone full of contacts and apps and ‘friends and followers,’ you’re alone. Seeing everyone out and about on social media truly affects a person. So, I think Twenge makes a really important and true point in this regard.
All in all, I think saying a generation is ‘ruined’ before you’ve even seen all of them grow into adults is wrong. But I DO believe that acknowledging and addressing the problems Twenge lays out is important. The gap kids (TM) were blessed to have their gap from technology, and grow up as kids. But, we also have a long way to go in terms of self-worth and social media, and how it relates to depression.
I am proudly blessed and depressed. (I’m working on the whole depressed thing, but isn’t everyone?)
https://youtu.be/Pbn6a0AFfnM <—- This link is the song the title is based on. It has a very interesting story, should anyone care to read into it. I highly recommend doing so!
What is the state of rhetoric in American society today?
Well, that’s quite an interesting question. How do I answer such a complex question?
When I began thinking about what I wanted to write this post on, my immediate answer was gun control. Yes, I care about LGBTQIA+ rights, and the pay gap, but I think the most pressing issue of those would be children dying in schools; simply living.
However, I reread the prompt for this post. Suddenly, a different answer came to me. I find myself saying “the two party system is, or rather should be, dead,” Quite often. What does that mean exactly?
Well, I identify as a Democrat, personally. I was raised in a mostly Democratic family, but the funny thing is, I didn’t know until the 2016 election rolled around that my family were democrats. I guess we just never really discussed politics in my family until there was someone my relatives REALLY didn’t like (sorry, Trump supporters). I was scared of saying what I thought due to fear of being ridiculed for being young, or getting in an argument with Republican family members. And I’m lucky to have a family that (mostly) agrees with me (yes, Grammy, I know pro-life is the way of our religion, but someone else’s life isn’t my business!).
Anyways… Where am I going with this?
Well, the thing is, that fear I held of speaking while developing my political views in a social media sphere is a problem. Why can’t children have different views from their parents? Why can’t they learn to be better; more educated; more independent-minded? Why can’t people voice their diverse opinions without the fear of immediate attack from opposition? The answer is that everyone should be able to.
…… THE TWO PARTY DOMINANT SYSTEM NEEDS TO DIE FOR THIS TO BE THE WORLD WE LIVE IN, INSTEAD OF A FANTASY.
Woah, that was really aggressive. Why was I that aggressive? Because, in our current two party dominated political system, people simply hear “republican” and think “hicks; gun-toting crazies; gay-hating slobs,” and when some hear “democrat” they think “fragile snowflakes; baby killers; crazy communists, libtards” instead of seeing real, genuine people. The system we have enables an atmosphere of animosity, a lack of communication, and overall missing the point.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And dialogues with different opinions are important and necessary, but how can these dialogues happen when the two sides are simply looking at each other angrily, labelling each other before even hearing the opinions they might find they agree with?
For example, I mentioned that I identify as a Democrat, and that’s true. However, a lot of my opinions fall in the middle of the political spectrum. Do I find that I align more with Democratic views? yes. Do I still share opinions that some Democrats, more liberal than myself, would ridicule me for? probably. That’s the point though, I vote in the favour of their candidates (traditionally) and align more with their views, but some liberals simply see a view that’s not theirs.
This post is much longer than what it was supposed to be, and that’s because I could go on about this for hours. The point of this is that dialogue is important, and as long as there is a side to oppose, proper and fair dialogue won’t take place. That is why I believe we need to work towards a system that isn’t dominated by two parties that hate each other instead of hearing each other.
