Discussion #5: More Peer Review”

Description

By Thursday at 11:59 PM, please post your revised introduction and two revised paragraphs of your choosing. (As a suggestion: you may find it more useful to post paragraphs that make an argument/deal with the counterargument, as opposed to paragraphs that define a term or give background. Also: it’s always better to post paragraphs you’re uncertain about/need help with.) By Sunday at 11:59 PM, please respond to two of your peers’ posts by answering the following questions: 1. Does each paragraph have a topic sentence that controls the paragraph? Does the topic sentence accurately capture what the paragraph is arguing? 2. Does the paragraph provide ample evidence/illustration of what the topic sentence proposes? 3. Is there a quotation in every paragraph? Is it clear how the quotation/analysis support the topic sentence? 4. Does anything in the paragraph feel disconnected from the argument? Should anything be trimmed out? 5. Could anything be made clearer? Can you offer a suggestion for something to add? 2 PEER RESPONSES ARE BELOW PLEASE RESPOND TO THEM 1ST PEER – In the “cancel culture” article, the author mentions, “cancel culture’ becomes a means for very rich and very powerful people to pretend they are victims when people respond to very controversial things they have used their huge public platform to say” (Ella). It means cancel culture is not actually about justice. It is about control. Rich people want free speech to tell everyone that they want in the public place. Some people might fight with others to cancel culture because they want the freedom to express their ideas in words. Despite the fact that cancel culture makes people argue or fight with others by using the opposite ideas; however, cancel culture is not a threat to free speech these days because of the people’s simple language which does not hurt anyone. Cancel culture always remind people that free speech also has some kind of limitation. Cancel culture also gives the opportunity to others to make them work for themselves for their good career without any obstacle.          First of all, cancel culture might help people to live their own life without hurting anyone with free speech. Everyone wants to express their feelings with others to prove them right. They also want free speech to tell everyone via media. For instance, rich people always have something to say to society, then they need freedom of speech to tell everyone. In the cancel culture article, the author explains, “Free speech has always had consequences” (Ella). It means people have to speak up if they want some things to happen good for society. Free speech always has some results, so everyone must have freedom of speech. Moreover, some government people also want the cancel culture because they are also worried about free speech because they do not have the right to speak about how they feel. They have to speak up about what is right or what is wrong; therefore, people need to have free speech to express how they feel.         Next, people can not stop fighting about cancel culture because they want to live their own lives in their own ways. Nowadays, everyone wants to become something in the future. They want the freedom of speech, so they can speak anything. Sometimes people cannot graduate because they do not have the ability to speak when something happens which is bad for them. Therefore, they fight for the cancel culture to get free speech. In the article, “Why we can’t stop fighting about cancel culture” the author is trying to mention, “You cannot stop people fighting about cancel a culture who loves its heroes”(Aja). It means, no one can stop fighting people about the cancel culture because they want to live their own life to create their future as they want. Mostly everyone thinks that people should get the right to speak, so they can do something in society. In short, people wants to live their own life on their own, so no one can stop the fight if they fight for freedom and cancel culture. 2ND PEER -Across social media, celebrities, brands and ordinary people are being “canceled”. The idea of “cancel culture” has been a huge debate subject lately.  The divide between ideologies seems to keep widening during the recent decade. Cancel culture is absolutely a threat to free speech in the 21st century. During the year of 2020, free speech has been seriously affected. People feel threatened to speak their mind because of the repercussions of ‘cancel culture’.  In society, people are using social media as a platform to voice their opinions. Under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, this is an example of people utilizing their “freedom of speech”. When an opinion is voiced in a post and or a tweet, those that feel differently may lash out to the victim to the point of bullying them. This causes the person posting or tweeting to feel threatened and or “canceled” for voicing their opinion.  On the other hand, Americans claim they have the right to “free speech” and can speak their minds if they aren’t threatening or bullying another person for their opinion.  If people on social media platforms keep attacking/bullying other individuals for expressing their opinions, their right to freedom of speech will not be exercised due to the fear instilled by their critics. In addition to the loss of voicing one’s opinion out of fear, those individuals’ reputations and/or careers can be in jeopardy.               To start off, when social norms begin to break by people expressing their opinions on politics, business and pop culture, people view these posts and band together by calling on others using collective voices. This is an example of “cancel culture”. In the article “What is the cost of ‘cancel culture’?” written by Zoe Thomas, a statement from Kimberly Foster was quoted. Kimberly Foster is a professional American writer and cultural critic. Within this article, Thomas discusses the effects of ‘cancel culture’, how far gone it is and who is being targeted and how. Foster stated, “Cancel culture can include everything from people with the most money and privilege in our society getting push back for saying things others found distasteful to regular everyday people losing their jobs for relatively minor infractions” (Foster). Canceling is used to reject people’s views. The quote I mentioned that was stated by Foster, is a great explanation of cancel culture and what happens to people that are canceled when stating their views and or opinions.  Next, Social Justice warriors have strongly been voicing their opinions and spreading them across social media platforms.  Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, wrote an article: “Cancel culture censorship can be most dangerous for those who promote social justice.” Within this article Nossel discusses those who have revolting views on race, gender and equality and how they are putting social justice warriors at risk. Social justice warriors are seeking to make a change, instead they are being ‘canceled’. Nossel states “the resulting dialogue has allowed previously silenced communities to gain voice and audience, and has catalyzed dramatic shifts in public opinion and new policies to eradicate systemic racism, sexual harassment, transphobia and other forms of marginalization” (Nossel). As Nossel stated this, she was explaining how the right of ‘free speech’ has made it possible for silenced people to speak up and come together to make a change. People who have been fighting for ‘free speech’ have recently been ‘canceled’ because their opinions are viewed as daunting and receive backlash for stating their views.