I have always wanted to discuss and do more research on this issue that has been occurring a lot in recent years- Cancel Culture. However, I was not sure which category to fit this specific civic issue topic, so for my last post, I wanted to include this debate that has made quite a stir in our generation’s mainstream culture. 

I believe we are all familiar with this person by now, being one of the most famous actors in the Hollywood and entertainment industry, Johnny Depp’s name has been brought up all over the internet. 

“The defamation trial in Virginia between the actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard has become a fierce battleground over the truth about their relationship, with both sides accusing the other of repeated domestic abuse in what was an unquestionably tumultuous marriage.” — The New York Time 

“Hollywood’s Ugliest Divorce” 

Under Hollywood’s spotlight, it is not uncommon for A-listers to go through a messy divorce. Johnny Depp and Amber heard, for example, finalized their divorce back in 2017, but the problems and controversy went on. 

“I was afraid he was going to kill me, either intentionally or just by losing control and going too far,” Amber Heard alleged during a July 2020 court appearance. “He explicitly threatened to kill me many times, especially later in our relationship.”

Johnny Depp, for his part, has repeatedly denied all her accusations. He spoke publicly about the abuse claims during an interview in the November 2018 issue of GQ, saying, “Ultimately, the truth will come out in all of this and I will be standing on the right side of the roaring rapids. I hope other people will be too.”  

While taking the stand in his libel trial against Amber Heard, Johnny Depp addressed his ex-wife’s claims of domestic abuse.

As for now, according to sources from AS news, Johnny Depp is being cross-examined by lawyers representing his ex-wife Amber Heard in a mutual defamation lawsuit. He is suing her for $50 million claiming that a 2018 article she wrote in the Washington Post resulted in days later in Disney dropping him from the 6th installment of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise.    

What is Cancel Culture?

Merriam-Webster defines cancel culture as the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure.  

Many people assumed the action of “canceling” a person to be a mob mentality or even a way to give justice back to the people that were harmed, essentially following the eye for an eye principle. According to Vox, some even came up with the term “celebrity hunting season”- meaning an unstoppable force descending to ruin one’s career of anyone that dares to go against what the majority of people deemed as the “moral boundaries”.   

Here is a clip of Johnny Depp speaking about Cancel Culture-  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKAwbeBFjv8

“One sentence, that’s all it takes.” 

 

When you make your identity, face, and reputation public for a long enough time, you know better than anyone that public opinion like backlashes can destroy not only your career but your whole entire life.  

There is a Chinese slang that literally translates as “human flesh search”. This term is meant to be silly, as it suggests that being human-powered to find information about someone they wanted to know is equivalent to advanced computer search engines. I believe, there are times when Americans thought they were just making fun of incidents and people with memes and light-hearted comments on the internet, but that eventually turned to someone’s life being demolished and the consequence of forever living with those hate comments and being kept out by society.       

The cancel culture is an influential phenomenon that incites many social conversations. Is cancel culture an important tool of social justice or another form of hero complex in the play? Mob intimidation? 

Also, there is not really a measurement to see how “canceled” a person is getting, in that sense, does cancel culture even exist? 

 

Work Sources

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-debate

Johnny Depp Takes Stand, Denies Amber Heard’s ‘Heinous’ Allegations in Court

 

 

 

Hollywood’s Ugliest Divorces: From Johnny and Amber to Erika and Tom

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel%20culture

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/

Regarding legacy admission, there have been quite some controversy and plenty made headlines in recent years. 

“All students deserve an equitable opportunity to gain admission to institutions of higher education, but students whose parents didn’t attend or donate to a university are often overlooked in the admissions process due to the historically classist and racist legacy and donor admissions practices at many schools across the country,” Bowman said in a statement.

In recent years, several institutions, including John Hopkins University and Amherst College, have ended their practice of legacy admission. 

According to the ABC news source, a bill introduced in Congress Wednesday by Democratic lawmakers seeks to end legacy admissions at many U.S. colleges and universities. 

The bill was introduced in an attempt to address the “unfair and inequitable admissions process that disproportionately benefits wealthy, white and well-connected students”. Essentially, this bill would allow the education secretary to waive the legacy preference ban for institutions like historically Black colleges and universities, tribal colleges, and minority-serving institutions, that have been admitting a high level of underrepresented students already.  

So what exactly is “Legacy”? 

In college admissions, a “legacy” student is defined as someone whose parents attended and/or graduated from the institution to which the student is applying.

From what we might have known, legacy students tend to receive a big boost in admission to private universities in the U.S. However, this excludes some prestigious schools, such as MIT. 

Legacy Admission is a practice in which colleges give special and extra consideration to children of alumni when deciding who to admit. The main reason that universities are using legacy admission is because of how much they care about their school’s yield, in that case, admitting qualified students that will “actually enroll”. When one student applies as legacy students they are demonstrating a strong interest in attending the institutions, and this is what the colleges and universities want out of this practice. In addition, colleges and universities can use this opportunity to maintain alumni engagement and return the favor of how they support the school (in the hope that the alumni community will continue giving back to the school in the future). 

A study of thirty elite colleges found that primary legacy students are an astonishing 45% more likely to get into highly competitive colleges or universities than non-legacy students. 

With only a 6% acceptance rate, Harvard University’s acceptance rate for legacies has a whopping 33%. It is not hard to see that Harvard alumni are disproportionately wealthy;  according to The Harvard Crimson, nearly a third of legacy freshmen hail from half-a-million-dollar households.   

 

According to The Century Foundation, legacy preferences are common among selective colleges. People that support legacy admission believe it can help boost an institution’s ability to award financial assistance to low-income students. 

 

“Legacy gives an unfair advantage to students with relatives who are alumni of a given school. By contrast, low-income students and members of underrepresented communities are far less likely to have relatives who grated from there.” 

 

On the other hand, we have people that voiced their opinion to ban the legacy admission for the better of the minorities that do not feel like they have a fair chance of getting into the colleges they want, so they insist on this preferential treatment to end. But at the end of the day, legacy admission is legal and is up to the institution to continue using this as their admission strategy or not. 

I believe people are paying to get a good education record. There is almost no way that one can be a strong applicant without having a wealthy family background, I also believe a well-extended social network is necessary for one to have a higher chance of getting into those prestigious colleges in the U.S. Though many legacy applicants have the privilege to show their relatives academic profile, they also demonstrate excellent academic records as their parents have sent them to receive top-tier education since they were a child.    

 

Work Sources

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressional-bill-seeks-end-legacy-admissions-colleges/story?id=82631985

https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/article/does-legacy-status-improve-your-chances-in-college-admissions/

https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=2884&Title=The%20Ethics%20of%20Current%20College%20Controversies

 

On December 18th, 2021, an episode of the morning show called “Morning Breeze” aired on Ugandan TV channel NBS TV. Pepe Julian Onziema, who was the one being interviewed, was a transgender man and an LGBTQ rights and human rights activist. The host, Simon Kaggwa Njala, was joined in the debate to learn about the homosexuality nature in Uganda. 

I am sure that many of you had heard or seen this meme at some point. But what most of you did not know is that the interview later turned into a chaotic scene when a pastor and anti-gay activist, Martin Ssempa, stormed into the show with fruits and vegetables after a phone call to try to discredit Onziema’s sexuality and his advocacy for sexual equality. 

All jokes aside, throughout the live interview, the host was very direct with his questions. 

Though the attitude and phrasing from the host may come off as rudely offensive, he was genuinely curious and kept an open mind as he was being educated on the new idea. In reality, as someone who is not part of the homosexual or transgender community, we all have similar questions that are hidden in the back of our minds. In that sense, what makes this interview so great is that the host was courageous to exchange his views while subjective to hear from both sides.

Why are you gay?

Who says I am gay?

You are gay!

People from the older generation cannot understand the concept of someone being a homosexual, and they always ask the question- “Is homosexuality a choice?” “Is homosexuality a disorder?” And to debunk these myths, we have to first know some sexuality terms. 

• The definition of homosexual, gay, or lesbian is when one is attracted to people of the same sex as oneself. 
• The definition of heterosexual is when one is attracted to people of the opposite sex as oneself. The word “straight” may be used to refer to heterosexual men and women. 
• The definition of bisexual is when one is attracted to both sexes.
• The definition of pansexual is when one is attracted to people regardless of their sex or gender. The word “queer” may be used to refer to pansexual men or women. 
• The definition of asexual is when one is not attracted to either sex. 

Sexual orientation refers to the sex, or gender, of people you are sexually attracted to, and there is surely not a wrong type of orientation. 

Therefore, what exactly causes sexual orientation? To this day, we do not have a scientific answer to what causes it. But we can say that it is not a disease, defect, or mental disorder. Additionally, that family issues can change one’s sexuality is also a myth. Social influence is impossible to make one change their sexual orientation.

Some questioned if homosexual people are trying to attract attention, however, when you come to think about it, why would someone claim themselves to be gay when most attention they received was negative and unpleasant. Although sexual preference can be changed during the “fluid period”, homosexuality is never a choice.

This is certainly a controversial topic between the older and newer generation and between the Christian and non-Christian communities when figuring out sexuality can already be difficult for many of us. The society we are living in can make many people in the LGBTQ community feel distressed and unsafe because of the expectation and single-out treatment from their parents and peers. According to HealthPeople.gov, LGBT health is an issue we should pay close attention to due to the oppression and discrimination they are constantly receiving. 

Data from the website even shows that LGBT youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide. As you can imagine, a careless or ignorant comment can create a large impact on others in ways we could never think of.

I am glad that the generation I am born in is becoming more acceptable to the LGBTQ community. As we are learning to respect our peers that have different sexual orientations from an early age, we have quite some exposure to people that come out and identify themselves as gay and lesbian. People have homophobia when they have uncertainty against homosexuals and that feeling of unfamiliarity turns into frankness. One day, if everyone managed to have the same patience and readiness that the host in the interview has, the LGBTQ community will be able to thrive normally and feel safe in the society we are living in. 

Work Cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_Julian_Onziema

https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-health

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/

https://familydoctor.org/homosexuality-facts-for-teens/

Here is the link to the full interview: 

Personally, I think environmental topics can be overdone sometimes as there are limitations to what humans can do to nature. Many environmental activists started off with positive intentions, but later on, used the attention they have to campaign for themselves and their labels. Their beliefs became more exaggerated for the press, and it slowly and surely become a marketing strategy as they don’t even seem to care about the words and promises that were filtered with performance purposes. 

I wanted to a new environmental technology that has gained some attention over the years. I found this technology interesting because it demonstrates how environmental experts are evaluating the Earth’s current condition and finding advanced solutions to reduce the amount of harm we are burdening onto this planet that was once pure and lovely.

Climate Engineering, or so-called geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate change. 

The introduction of this new technology concept is an ongoing development in response to immediate climate change, and they are all intended to change the Earth’s climate, despite some side effects that may occur during the process. 

Some common techniques include solar geoengineering, so-called solar radiation management, which reflects some sunlight (solar radiation) back to space to limit or reverse human-caused climate change. In this case, researchers might use chemicals to increase the reflectiveness of clouds or build space mirrors/shields to reflect the sun’s energy. An example would be spraying seawater thousands of meters into the air to seed the formation of stratocumulus clouds that will deflect sunlight.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), is another practice that many mistakenly classified with solar geoengineering, in which this technique requires taking high risk in an attempt to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Researchers might remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by building massive new forests (like extremely massive) or by adding chemicals and nutrients to the ocean. CDR has now been considered to be able to address the root cause of climate change to potentially reduce net emissions. 

These mitigation ideas sound legit, but many uncertainties on efficiency and side effects start surfacing as we do not have enough research to prove the result of effect and the risk we will be taking on these massive projects that take a large amount of time and investments to eventually operate.

However, scientists have come to the conclusion that solar geoengineering and CDR cannot substitute for reducing emissions. In fact, the existence of such techniques mainly works to reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emission; therefore it does not directly address or take action on the environmental issue. That’s why many environmental organizations and professionals called out geoengineering to be a moral hazard, or more specifically, risk compensation. Currently, there are many mixed results on how geoengineering is influence the reduction of CO2 emissions or not. 

There are many criticisms and concerns regarding the potential risk of specific projects, as well as skepticism of how the business operates. 

Another issue was brought up as many questions the motivations behind the supporters of geoengineering. Ethnically speaking, the arguments that the supporters back up are often confronting the worldview, which means the discussion of geoengineering may exclude individual and religious communities. Some religious communities could raise questions on humans to have no responsibility in controlling or fixing the climate that belongs to their Creator. Communities with belief can point out that the die effect of solar geoengineering is essentially controlling the weather.

According to climate economist Gernot Wagner the term “geoengineering” is “largely an artefact and a result of the terms frequent use in popular discourse” and “so vague and all-encompassing as to have lost much meaning“.

As for now, the public’s awareness of geoengineering is low. Despite these attempts could possibly make significant alternations in the world’s climate. 

Some common concerns collected from a 2017 focus group study conducted by Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) in the United States, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden: 

• What happens if the technologies backfire with unintended consequences?

• Are these solutions treating the symptoms of climate change rather than the cause?

• Shouldn’t we just change our lifestyle and consumption patterns to fight climate change, making climate engineering a last resort?

• Isn’t there a greater need to address political solutions to reduce our emissions?

 

The participants felt that mitigation and adaptation to climate change were strongly preferred to be what we should prioritize for now. And I have to also agree that with how large scale it needs for geoengineering to take effect, we should set this option as our very last resort. People are social media are speculating that there are secret government actions implementing massive geoengineering already, and while these claims are extreme, I cannot help but think there are people that are on the move to implement this technology someday. 

 

Work Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#:~:text=Climate%20engineering%20or%20commonly%20geoengineering,in%20the%20Earth’s%20climate%20system.&text=Solar%20geoengineering%2C%20or%20solar%20radiation,reverse%20human%2Dcaused%20climate%20change.

https://www.space.com/geoengineering-how-to-control-the-weather

https://roadtoparis.info/top-list/geoengineering/

According to a new Pew Research Center survey, 4 in 10 people responded that the country hasn’t made enough progress toward racial equality, and some believed black people will never have equal rights with whites. 

Yes, unfortunately, as we thought systematic racism was a decades ago topic, we have to now awaken from the reality that this civic issue is only getting more complex and that the progress we had made so far is not looking too bright because racism has always been a deep-rooted stigma in the United States all the way from the bloody Civil Wars.

 

According to, Steven O. Roberts, a Stanford psychologist who identified seven major factors that contribute to the heated racism problem in America: 

• Categories, which organize people into distinct groups. 
• Factions, which trigger ingroup loyalty and intergroup competition.
• Segregation, which hardens racist perceptions, preferences, and beliefs.  
• Hierarchy, which emboldens people to think, feel, and behave in racist ways. 
• Power, which legislates racism on both micro and macro levels. 
• Media, which legitimizes overrepresented and idealized representations of White Americans while marginalizing and minimizing people of color.
• Passivism, such that overlooking or denying the existence of racism encourages others to do the same.

In this Stanford article, a postdoctoral fellow at NYU brought up the fact that many people, especially white people, have underestimated the depths of racism. Though the spotlight was rightfully given to the recent murders of Geroge Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many others. We as people have to understand that these events are the brutal consequences of a much larger system with the community. In regard, I have to agree with him, in order to leave an impact and actually make changes, people have to come together as one community to be educated on how the system function first.

Intergroup prejudice is the most critical belief and mindset that leads to systematic discrimination. If we can fix or at least lessen the tension of many people’s intergroup relations by starting improving our living qualities in the community, it can at least reduce the level of animosity in the current air.  

 

 

One thing I noticed in the United States is that some babies would stare at me with confusion, especially with white babies. I am not talking about the curious look that babies would give to anyone when they assume they are strangers, but a genuine glare as they study my skin color and distinct facial features. Even though more and more Asians can be spotted in America, there are still instances when these children might have never gotten the chance to see someone that does not look like themselves. Every time this happens, I would start suspecting that these babies’ families may be living in not-so-diverse areas and their parents may have little to no Asian friends and relatives, which is why these little kids were dazed by my appearance. 

 

 

From my personal experience, since Taiwan is a rather small place, not many foreigners would come around, and even if there are most of the time they are there as tourists for a short period of vacation. Therefore, growing up in Taiwan, I had very few opportunities to see or interact with someone that does not look like me. For most Taiwanese, foreigners of different races only appeared in movies, and of course, sports channels. With that being said, black people were introduced to me through NBA games on TV as my father watches basketball. 

The very first time I have gotten the chance to talk to a foreigner would have to be an American, who is a white male that teaches English from my kindergarten. And keep this in mind, I was attending a private institution, which is why they were able to have an English native speaker to teach us. Otherwise, public kindergarten schools’ English teachers would most likely be Taiwanese. 

Also, It is not until later upperclassmen in elementary school that I learned there is systematic racism that exists in our society. Besides, the reason I was even introduced to the idea is that some Youtubers speak racial slurs in their videos because there was no chance for people to be racist to people in our own community. 

Now, looking back, I was unaware of there are minorities or certain races in this world being looked down on and treated unequally. And when I was finally able to recognize the horrifying stigma in this world is when I came to the United States. Somehow, I felt ignorant to be educated on these social issues just now, since I am confident that many people out there may never have the chance to know the complication of some racial communities that are unspokenly being suppressed by others. Another thing I can be sure of is that there have been people in Taiwan that made jokes about other races and ethnicity, yet, none of them were pointed out in any media because the potential communities that were targeted are not large enough to become controversial, in which I think is disappointing, as public figures could appropriate this behavior to make people believe that their statements can be taken lightly.

In conclusion, sadly, I truly believe that racism exists everywhere and in every corner of this world. It just depends on how much your country is exposed to a variety of races. The more diverse a country appears to be, the more prevalent the intergroup prejudice would present as a transparent issue to all.

 

Work Cited

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/06/09/seven-factors-contributing-american-racism/

What fuels prejudice?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3640585/

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34913564

 

On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected another attempt by abortion providers to block Texas’ six-week abortion ban.

This order is a setback for providers that are trying to revive challenges after 5 months the effect took place by bringing a pause to Texas with the most abortion laws.  

“This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent.

“The abortion was a life-altering expericne. It felt very determining and self-affirming.”- Loretta Ross (Had an abortion in 1970)

 

Abortion has long been one of the most controversial social issues. Yet, polls from the Pew Research center suggest that nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, U.S. women have possessed the right to access abortion until a fetus is viable- to be able to survive outside the womb. The time period is around 22 and 24 weeks into a pregnancy. 

 

Texas abortion law, known as Texas “heartbeat act”, was passed in May and went into effect on September 1, 2021. In terms of the word, “heartbeat”, it is said that any pregnancy in which a heartbeat is detected cannot be aborted. Essentially, if one six weeks pregnant is unable to abort in Texas because this is when most fetal cardiac activity happens. On the other hand, doctors opposed this assumption, as the fluttering detected is not always a heartbeat this early in a pregnancy. 

The laws make no exception when it comes to rape, sexual abuse, or incest. On top of all the rules, Texas law enforcement incentivizes the public to sue abortion providers that are potentially “aiding and abetting” abortions after the six-week mark. Not only doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, and people who help pay for the procedure could be sued, but also the Uber driver taking the patient to an abortion clinic could become potential defendants.  A $10,000 is set in the law for the defendant to pay the plaintiff if the lawsuit eventually becomes successful. 

 

Justice Sotomayor claimed that this uncommon approach of structure makes it complicated for courts to enjoin the law’s enforcement on a statewide basis. 

On September 21, Gov. Abbott also signed Senate Bill 4, which bans every person “from providing an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman without satisfying the applicable consent requirements of abortions.”

After the abortion law took effect, the anti-abortion organization Texas Right To Life claims that at least 2,000 abortions were prevented in Texas in late September.

 

In June 2019, a UT/TT Poll showed that 68% of Republican voters favored and 63% of Democrats voters opposed the “heartbeat” law.

Although we learned that more than two-thirds of Texas voters are Republicans, and despite the fact that the Texas Legislature passed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, not every Texan would describe their state as a “pro-life” state when they stand is quite divided. Therefore, the irony lives on. Though religion and ideology are probably the strongest drives backing the Republicans. It is likely that the Democrats also lack support in the U.S. Senate to pick up enough votes to overcome the procedure. 

The Washington Post is now assuming a wave of lawsuits waiting to end the Texas ban, as the Biden administration has been suing Texas to end the law. Until now, abortion providers can sue the state, too.

Coming from Texas, the second-largest state in the country, I noticed that abortion has been a heated topic in my town on a daily basis, especially in schools. The subject has picked up many issues and concerns we have for our future. 

In my opinion, when cases of rape, incest, or when a women’s life may be in danger, abortion should be an option for the owner of the body. However, I do respect many Christians’ beliefs and practices when it comes to treating life and how they perceive the matter as inhumane. There is also the bill that was established based on religious freedom, so it is not unreasonable that there are still crowds out there who encourage and support the abortion law. Nevertheless, overall, I still believe that women should be able to access their abortion rights, mainly for special and critical circumstances. 

I am glad to do some research in this blog, as this is one of those political subjects that I am interested in learning more about and hearing others’ insight in a discussion.

 

Work Cited 

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/19/near-majority-texans-favor-outlawing-abortion-after-six-weeks-ut-tt/

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/overview-abortion-attitudes-texas-four-things-know

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/24/congress-reproductive-rights-texas-abortion-law/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/01/texas-abortion-law-faq/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/abortion-texas-sb8-supreme-court/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/21/opinion/roe-v-wade-abortion-history.html