for brilliant answer
zhr13675128136
Project3withFeedback.docx
1
Human Difference
In “Why America is Self-Segregating,” Danah Boyd traces back at the unraveling historical institutions through that the Americans achieved. These institutions are higher education and the US military. Danah raised the question of how the trend toward personalized content on social media continues to split Americans along ideological boundaries. Since the United States is still diversified, it is an isolated country, although they have been working hard to resolve different perspectives and perspectives, experiences and political ideologies as a country. Most institutions in the United States force individuals to encounter differences that do not produce results and tolerance in healthy solutions, thus oppressing and enslaving others based on differences. According to Danah, when individuals sign up, they are given promises of training and job opportunities where individual motivations vary tremendously and the aspects of signing up the lead to diversification. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: When revising, remember to bring in Blanda. What does he say that relates to Boyd? How are their main arguments similar and dissimilar? Also, it’s okay if introducing Blanda makes your paragraph very long. A long paragraph can be a good paragraph. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Be more specific. In what ways does Boyd believe these major institutions are “unraveling”? What’s the main issue that she addresses? Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Add a transition word here that helps your readers go from broad/general information to specific information. “Specifically,” will work well. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Consider revising the sentence to this: “Although the United States is diverse, it is a geographically isolated country, but they have been working . . . “ Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Add another transition/introduction phrase here that connects your previous sentence to the next sentence. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Sign-up for what?
In response to this and since this diversifications are as a result of differences in races, I will argue that the US military should wage war against prejudice which is not an easy task. The end of this difference will eventually create trust among the soldiers who will be willing to do what it takes in the protection of the rest of the unit. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Remember that your goal/objective is not to argue anything. Instead, you want to explain what your two authors are arguing (Blanda & Boyd). What issues do they talk about in their texts, and where are they in agreement about some issues?
In my opinion, morale should be raised, which is the main reason why soldiers should not be forced to entrust their lives to people different from them. In the article, Danah alerts readers that the American Military does not offer justification and the broader interest is towards growing the military. Lack of justification leads to military commanders being forced to break the barriers of teamwork, condensing the values of a group of people, politics, ideology, and demographics vary from country to country, and this diversity creates a huge conflict. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Now, bring in Blanda. What did you read in his article that relates to what Boyd says about the military? Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: I don’t know what you mean by this phrase. Please explain.
“The Other Side Is Not Dumb” by Sean Blanda asserts that people way of thinking may not be wrong. He asked readers to evaluate themselves and determine their views on hot topics. In his argument, Brenda called on readers to have inner curiosity when referring to Trump. Brenda said that the basis of the wrong consensus is that everyone thinks like us. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: What would Boyd say to this? Does she also believe that people should be more curious towards new and different opinions? Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Do you mean false-consensus bias?
He believes that individuals should be themselves and should think for themselves. He asked them to evaluate the opposition of others and give the reader a professional impression of the subject. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Point back to the text, and provide evidence of where Blanda makes this claim. Can you provide a direction quotation to support your interpretation/understanding?
The author wants the reader to start feeling emotional where the reader`s attention is caught in the title by stating that “The Other Side Is Not Dumb”. Blanda argues that our friends can blindside us and with time we tend to believe that we are not different from them. In consideration of online discourse productivity and the behavior of social media, Blanda helps us understand that the other side is just as educated and informed as us. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: This is a good point that both authors talk about. When revising, I suggest that you explore/discuss/explain this topic in its own paragraph, and show how both authors have something to say about it.
He tried to get readers involved in determining their logical lies and looking at different points of view. He asked readers to compare themselves to those who watched a particular program and to determine if they had similar reasons. Brenda tries to make readers apply logic, reasoning and thinking. He gives his claim a back up by using names like Washington Post to indicate that the public no longer cares that the articles they read are not accurate Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: When revising, make sure that each individual paragraph focuses on one, single topic. In these paragraphs, you mention a few topics, and then you only focus on one author at a time. Instead of doing that, focus on one topic, and bring both authors into the discussion. For an example of this, re-watch the Jubilee video on YouTube because that video shows how many different people can participate in a conversation on one topic.
Blanda makes the reader realize that if he/she finds himself in a discussion involving disagreements, he should not try to convince or win, you should try to lose. He believes that before sharing a link to current events on social media, he should ask himself why he/she wants to do so.
In my argument and response, I find the article very useful in bridging the differences we have and I tend to give it a credit. It tries to use emotions for you to consider how the other side feels. The use of logic and reasoning is beneficial in considering how the other side feels and I can term this article to address a current issue which happens in all social forms of social media. Comment by Vasquez, Haley Katherine: Remember that I want you to synthesize the two sources. You can include your opinion/stance, but the focus here should be on how Blanda and Boyd agree, disagree, or demonstrate shared opinions.
