In Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times' article, " Go Ahead, Criticize #MeToo" She targets falsities of feminism being another word for "Man Hating" In reality the movement consists of real life, everyday women (mostly) finally feeling brave enough to voice their own heartbreaking experiences. She notes that while women were never forced to keep silent, they have just now found their voice as one and won't back down. Goldberg simply gives off the impression that she's all for the movement and so should everyone else.
In one part of the article, Goldberg elucidates the impression that women feel threatened and scared to come forward, "I understand the hesitation to say them publicly, because it’s unpleasant to be jeered at on the internet by self-righteous young people. But Roiphe, like the Trump rally-goers, makes a category error in conflating criticism — even harsh, ugly criticism — with oppression. The social justice left is often accused of putting feelings over facts. But its critics, in many cases, are just as unwilling to distinguish feeling silenced from actually being silenced." this statement is coming from others around and common misconceptions of political parties. In many parts of life women are forced into roles of submission simply because some men can not handle being "shown up" by a woman. A shift occurs in Goldberg's article when she goes into depth of what Roiphe states, "Can you see why some of us are whispering?” asks Roiphe in her Harper’s piece, citing angry things Donegan has written online. “It is the sense of viciousness lying in wait, of violent hate just waiting to be unfurled, that leads people to keep their opinions to themselves, or to share them only with close friends.” this gives an undeniable feeling of dread and worry for other women like Roiphe, who has come forward and now fear judgement. the author shows a deep sense of passion while referring to multiple sources throughout her article. She makes it clear and concise where her opinions lay.
1 Comment
Part Three:
Dear Congresswoman Kay Granger, My name is Morgan Chaffin, I am currently a junior at Mesquite High School in Mesquite, Texas. Net Neutrality is incredibly important to me, because as a soon to be young adult I've taken notice that most of all companies revolve around the use of the internet. Without, quick and free access to said internet I am left in a dilemma I never thought I'd be in, figuring out a way to be successful without much access to mainstream technology. Referring to the Net Neutrality laws put in place in 2015 that Congress and the FCC so selfishly took away, "internet service providers such as, DISH, AT&T, and so on could not discriminate any content, as long as it was considered legal, by blocking anything from apps to websites. Second, service providers (refer to previous examples) couldn't slow the arrival of data, as long as it was considered legal. And last, providers couldn't access an internet "VIP Lane" for companies or consumers who pay for what are considered premiums, and a "Back Lane" for those who didn't." no where here do I see a bad effect of these laws. The only bad part of this is that, the wealthy, stubborn internet providers and Congress members as well as the FCC alike aren't getting enough pay back. There is never a good reason to deny your citizens the right to the, and accurate information the internet supplies us with. Please take into regard all of the lives you're effecting and the real reason you're doing so. Sincerely, Morgan Chaffin. Part Two:
Net neutrality is a law that requires internet providers to offer equal accost all web content. It does not charge consumers better quality regarding delivery nor does it allow "special treatment" to certain websites. the repeal is similar to being a member of a Ulta's "premium membership" and paying extra to get access to beauty products. The origins of the law of net neutrality were made in 2015 included three important parts. First, internet service providers such as, DISH, AT&T, and so on could not discriminate any content, as long as it was considered legal, by blocking anything from apps to websites. Second, service providers (refer to previous examples) couldn't slow the arrival of data, as long as it was considered legal. And last, providers couldn't access an internet "VIP Lane" for companies or consumers who pay for what are considered premiums, and a "Back Lane" for those who didn't. The repeal of net neutrality could lead America backwards instead of forwards in our progression as a nation. Without net neutrality laws in place, providers could begin a "pay to play" scheme forcing millions of Americans out of using the internet and resources only provided on it. Part One:
Regarding Net Neutrality, Marguerite Reardon of the Cnet's article regarding net neutrality, " Net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same" Offers insight on net neutrality and how it will effect Americans. Reardon uses several paragraphs to separate her ideas and organize the different resources regarding net neutrality. The author wants to inform America about what the appeal of net neutrality could mean for America. This article appeals to America because it is thoughtful, supplies facts, and attempts for them to form their own opinions about the topic. In the beginning of Reardon's article, she explains the FCC's reasoning for wanting to repeal net neutrality, she states, "FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants the US government to stop "micromanaging the internet." On Tuesday he introduced a proposal to repeal the controversial 2015 net neutrality rules that prevented broadband companies from blocking or slowing down access to websites or services.... Pai has called the Obama-era rules "heavy-handed" and "a mistake," and he argues that they've deterred innovation and depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks. To set things right, he says, he's taking the FCC back a "light touch" approach to regulation. " by providing facts and sources of information creates a quick sense or reliability and credibility with Reardon. She then goes on to remind readers what net neutrality is exactly, "Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally, regardless of whether you're checking Facebook, posting pictures to Instagram or streaming movies from Netflix or Amazon. It also means that companies like AT&T, which is trying to buy Time Warner, or Comcast, which owns NBC Universal, can't favor their own content over a competitor's content. " this long-winded, modernized explanation leaves no room for questions as it comfortably flows through generations of understanding. One thing she notes that has been stripped is broadband being known as a utility ,"Under the 2015 rules, the FCC reclassified broadband as a utility, which gave it the authority to regulate broadband infrastructure much as it did the old telephone network. The proposal would strip away that classification. " showing how deep the repeal flows. Towards the end of the article, Reardon starts showing opposing views to the repeal of net neutrality, ""Internet rights are civil rights," said Jay Stanley, an ACLU senior policy analyst. "Gutting net neutrality will have a devastating effect on free speech online. Without it, gateway corporations like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T will have too much power to mess with the free flow of information."" by providing the readers with a source outside of the government, it creates enough familiarity and comfort to make sure the reader will trust her more. Throughout the entirety of her article, Reardon remains clear and concise on her viewpoints as well as others, providing the reader with multiple and diverse sources. |
ArchivesCategories |