Category: ENG110 Posts (Page 2 of 2)

From what Lamott has to say, is writing a first draft more about the product or
the process? Do you agree in regard to your own first drafts? Explain.

I’d say Lamott says a first draft is more about the process than the product. It’s just to get your ideas down and on the paper; out of your head. Whatever comes out comes out at the end of the day all that matters is you’ve put something down. I completely agree with her. There’s nothing worse than starting something; I feel like I have to start it off so good and with such gusto that way the whole thing can follow in that way and that doesn’t make sense. It’s like a hockey player strapping on skates, going out on the ice without warming up and expecting to play at their very best. We need the warm up time. I love hearing writers talk about how they struggle and how they hate their first drafts. Not because I’m a sadist or something, but because it makes me feel less alone. Knowing I’m not the only one that struggles with a first draft or even with hating my own work in the beginning is comforting.

• In 400 words or less, summarize the piece AND show (with framed quotes and paraphrase from the text) what you believe to be the author’s three main points/arguments. Support with textual evidence and include your own initial response to the material.

Bloom’s article is all about empathy and how it can do more harm than good. Bloom goes through many examples of how empathy can be a problem. He states, “A world in which an act helps one person in the here and now can lead to greater suffering in the future (1).” He says empathy tends to be biased and his reasoning is that people cannot be empathic to more than a few people at a time and that they’re less likely to be empathic towards others they don’t know. He says people need to use diffuse compassion and intellect to help have a more unbiased form of helpfulness.

• Do you agree with Bloom’s main arguments? Why or why not?

I think Bloom makes some good points. But fundamentally I completely disagree. I think Bloom’s article helps that prejudice they seem to be against. By using empathy so much in this article they claim we can understand what different people are going through which we can’t always do. The argument is made that white people find it harder to empathize with POC. However I as a white person cannot empathize with POC on racism. I have no idea or understanding what it’s like to face racism. I know what it is and that it’s awful. But I will never directly have to deal with it. Because of this I can only sympathize. If I empathize I assume I understand and know what POC facing racism are going through. Which I don’t and can’t. This false understanding can lead to prejudice and bias. I cannot empathize with POC therefore I should listen to their voices as I can’t understand. Going through life with this false sense that I CAN empathize makes it so I may listen as much or as hard. This is my biggest issue with the article. The idea of empathy and sympathy are used interchangeably which is awful. I shouldn’t think I can empathize I need to know I’ll never understand what it’s like. It’s important to know that and this is true for many other issues. I will never be able to empathize as I will never understand. I need to know that in order to listen and know how I can help or if I simply need to stand to the side. Operating under the assumption you can empathize with everyone and can simply imagine how anything anyone has gone through feels can cause prejudice and bias of its own.

• In what ways does Bloom challenge your initial understanding or perception regarding empathy?

Bloom does make me realize there is a bias in empathy and the idea that we ca’t empathize with everyone. I do like that that’s pointed out in the article. I think great points are made that if something gets enough media coverage things with change but people are very eager to turn a blind eye to things as it’s easier.

• Find one claim Bloom makes that evoked a strong response. Paste the direct quote from his piece, then write a few sentences in which you challenge OR support his claim in your own words.

“Here your empathy is silent — how can you empathize with a statistical abstraction? To the extent that you can appreciate that it’s better for one specific child to die than for an unknown and imprecise larger number of children to die, you are using capacities other than empathy.” I don’t know that I 100% agree with this. I can sympathize with that fact that hundreds more families would have to go through losing a child and I don’t want that to happen (however Bloom is right I cannot EMPATHIZE with them as I don’t know what it’s like to lose a child). But this quote, to me, also frames humans as having a one track mind. I’m can understand the vaccine in this example is needed to save many more lives while also feeling bad it killed a child. I can use both an emotional and logically part of my brain at once. They’re not two separate things. I think this is a complex issue but this article is diluting too much and acting as though it’s black and white when it’s actually multiple shades of grey.

1.) What was your final thesis statement? Paste, then analyze its strengths and weaknesses in a focused paragraph (considering specificity, taking a stance, narrow focus, multiple components).

My final thesis statement was, “Social media should be taken less seriously and children should be monitored or not use it at all.” I think I could’ve made it more specific and focused around my ideas. I honestly wish I had volunteered it to be workshopped with the class I think I would’ve benefited greatly from that. I do hit my topics and make my claim but there was so much more I said in the essay and even more I wanted to say. I think part of the issue was this was only a four page paper. I could’ve written about this for much longer than only four pages so it was choosing which ideas were most important and what I should focus on.

2.) In a separate paragraph, describe what you learned or were reminded of about your own writing process.

I was reminded that I need to force myself to sit down and write things. I think the process I use to write my essays works well. I lay out what topics I want to hit and what I want to talk about, gather quotes that fix that topic, then I sit down and get most of it done. I usually skip the intro for last. I get everything laid out beforehand so when I sit and write I don’t have to stop I can just go for it and get it all out there. The problem is sitting down and writing. I get my outlining done days before I have to but leave the writing for the last minute. I need to find a spot on campus where I can just hole up and feel the need to be productive so I can write it. That’s always been my biggest issue with essays or papers.

3.) In another paragraph which aspect of your revision did you focus most on? What changes or adjustments made your essay stronger?

I focused most on making sure everything flowed together. I find that when I write I can think I explained something extremely clearly but I actually didn’t. So making sure my points are developed and coherent are my biggest worries. Sometimes I can leave a sentence or idea half finished so leaving the draft for a few days then returning fresh faced can make me realize just how messy my writing can get. I’m always looking for ways to make my sentences or paragraphs better flow into each other.

4.) How might you approach paper #2 differently from pre-reading and annotation, all the way through completion of your final draft?

I’d try to get paper #2 done and written before the day it’s due so I have time to properly revise and rethink over my ideas. That way if something big or structural about the essay has to change it’s not a race against the clock or a “well too late now” kind of deal. I want to be able to go in and make those changes with the proper time to do so. That way the paper can be as best as I can make it. I’d also like to annotate the things I read more. It’s much more helpful to have good annotations that way I don’t have to completely reread the article multiple times to find the quotes I need or to be able to create a good summary. I want to mark up what I’m reading more so I can remember what I was thinking/feeling when I first read it.

Konnikova introduces the idea of the Dunbar number and “the rule of three” in the first page to set up her point that people have groups of friends or acquaintances that we see in person. She further drives this point home when she talks about how army regiments and things from hundreds of years ago, before Dunbar’s research, also support his findings. This sets up the comments she makes about her concern for social media and how it’ll affect human social bonds in the future. She observes that online friendships make take up places in our social circles even if we can’t be with them physically; this being said she’s worried it could have adverse affects on humans moving forward.

Before:

“The Dunbar number is actually a series of them. The best known, a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, say, you’d The Dunbar number is actually a series of them. The best known, a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, say, you’d invite to a large party. (In reality, it’s a range: a hundred at the low end and two hundred for the more social of us.) From there, through qualitative interviews coupled with analysis of experimental and survey data, Dunbar discovered that the number grows and decreases according to a precise formula, roughly a “rule of three.” The next step down, fifty, is the number of people we call close friends—perhaps the people you’d invite to a group dinner. You see them often, but not so much that you consider them to be true intimates. Then there’s the circle of fifteen: the friends that you can turn to for sympathy when you need it, the ones you can confide in about most things. The most intimate Dunbar number, five, is your close support group. These are your best friends (and often family members). On the flipside, groups can extend to five hundred, the acquaintance level, and to fifteen hundred, the absolute limit—the people for whom you can put a name to a face. While the group sizes are relatively stable, their composition can be fluid. Your five today may not be your five next week; people drift among layers and sometimes fall out of them altogether.”

After:

The Dunbar number is actually a series of different ones; the first and most well known is a hundred a fifty, the number of friends you’d invite to a dinner party or casual friends. After this number it was surveyed that the number grows and decreases at about a “rule of three”. The next number is fifty or the number of people we call close friends or those you’d invite to dinner. The next circle is fifteen these are the friends you turn to for sympathy and confide in. The last circle is five and is you closest and most intimate group. The largest groups can extend to five hundred when including acquaintances and fifteen hundred is seen to be the absolute limit of people who’s name we can put to faces. While the numbers themselves are relatively concrete the people in each group can fluctuate quite frequently.

I used less language and made it shorter and easier to digest as a reader. This paper wasn’t very long but I felt in this paragraph specifically was a lot to try and digest as a reader. There’s a lot of very important information here so it should be easy to understand yet I thought it was slightly convoluted. This in turn made the paragraph shorter but I think it made it easier to understand.

1. Write a brief summary, using your words and direct quotes, of Megan Phelps-Roper’s personal transformation, as described in Chen’s piece. Be sure to include 2-3 direct quotes (with proper MLA citations) that illuminate changes Phelps-Roper experienced along the way.

The article starts off with a quote from Phelps-Roper and honestly I think this is the best way to start the explanation of her transformation, “‘Thank God for aids!’ she tweeted that morning. ‘You won’t repent of you rebellion that brought His wrath on you in this incurable scourge, so expect more & worse! #red (Chen, 1).'” Phelps-Roper starts her life in the cult and church revealing in the downfall of others. She said she’d picket funerals of dead gay soldiers and rejoice on social media when celebrity idols died. This is what started her doubts about the church and their morals as a celebrity she had liked died and while she felt sadness for it the rest of the church celebrated. She goes from calling LGBTQ+ individuals the f-slur to doing this, “One evening, after speaking at a Jewish festival in Montreal, she and Grace passed a group of drag queens on the sidewalk outside a cabaret. She felt a surge of disgust…She and Grace ended up dancing on stage during intermission (Chen 20).” I think this is a great show of her change of heart. She goes from thanking God for the AIDS epidemic to going to a drag queen show and enjoying it. I think it shows how she started to think of individuals as people not as evil sinners who deserve hell.

2. In your opinion, how did social media embolden Phelps-Roper’s initial message as a spokesperson for Westboro Baptist Church? How did interactions via social media influence her drastic shift in personal belief? Use at least two direct quotes, framed with help from Ch. 3 of They Say/I Say), to support your claims.

I absolutely believe that originally social media helped to embolden Phelp-Roper’s message. This is not to say that it didn’t later become the reason she left the church, but I think this quote shows the effect it had on her in the beginning, “Phelps-Roper was exhilarated by the response. Since elementary school, she had given hundreds on interviews about Westboro, but the reaction on Twitter seemed more real than a quote in the newspaper (Chen, 2).” It’s become so common today for our emotions to get tied up to what others think of us on social media. I think this is what Phelps-Roper experienced when she first started her account. Any attention was good attention for the church. But I do think social media was also the start of her turn around. If not social media the people she met on social media. Specifically David Abitbol and their interactions on Twitter, “…he responded. ‘U mean like holding up God Hates Shrimp, err I mean Fags sign up? Your ‘ministry’ is a joke (Chen 8).'” This was his first response to her on Twitter and I think it’s what started her turn around. He used examples of the churches bigotry against them and this was the first moment it was probably truly shown to Phelps-Roper just how many people disagreed with the church’s morals. It wasn’t just some small protest where passersby would give them dirty looks. This was out there for the whole world to see and disagree with. I think this, and the other people she grew close to who changed her mind, are a large part of the reason she realized this hatred wasn’t good.

3. “Anybody’s initial response to being confronted with the sort of stuff Westboro Baptist Church says is to tell them to f*** off,” said blogger David Abitbol (Chen 79). But it was less-aggressive communication styles that “got through” to Phelps-Roper, that in part influenced her to reconsider her belief system. What style(s) of conversation (consider message, tone, perspective) had the most impact on Phelps-Roper? What might her story teach us about confronting hate speech? What about redemption?

This story shows us that people are most likely to react better to less confrontational forms of communication. When people are nice and sincere in trying to get others to learn about things people are more likely to respond well. This is especially true when the information is coming from the group that someone is directing their hate towards. In the end she fell in love with one of the people who helped changed her mind and is friends with another one. This is a great story about how hate being met with love and understanding can change a person’s mind. However I think we have to be careful when considering stories like this. It would’ve been very easy for another person from Phelps-Roper’s church to just dismiss these people with more hurtful comments. And it could be extremely damaging to someone to be called multiple slurs while trying to explain to someone why homophobia and anti-semitism is wrong. Stories like this are very heart warming and I’m glad Phelps-Roper had a turn of heart but I don’t want individuals to make their own mental health suffer trying to make hateful individuals less hateful because of things like this. Some people take the burden of educating others too much to heart and if the person is more hateful than Phelps-Roper and more dangerous something much worse could be an outcome.

4. If you were to meet Phelps-Roper today, what question would you want to ask her, and why?

I’d want to ask her what she thinks of God now. Is she still a believer? Is she still a christian? Or is she an atheist? I can’t imagine what being in such a rigid and cult like group centered around God could do to someone’s spiritual orientation. Now that she’s out of that life and trying to convert others out of it I want to know what opinions she herself formed about the afterlife and God.

Chen, Adrian, et al. “Conversion via Twitter.” The New Yorker, 16 Nov. 2015, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper.