And so contextually, young people tend to show passivity and don't take action to respond to these comments which is either because they don't like law enforcement or because they don't want to break the status quo. I'd agree that it's much easier to just stand back and wait for someone else to do something than to do something yourself which is the Bystander Effect.

This is a bold claim that also addresses the issue of nature vs nurture where these people aren't inherently racist but act and speak in that manner because the environment cause them to do so and the norm is established that way.

This is another good point to add in regards to how online speech differs from real life because this anonymity and creation of a illusory self creates a medium for these people to carry out their actions.

So she is focusing on how young people experience hate speech but not why it happens. It seems she wants to set up a starting point for others to explore why hate speech arose.

As far as background goes, it would be interesting to see how much research has been conducted since this article was written. She states that youth research is few but that seems strange compared to how many young people are out there. I could state in my own essay that there is a lack of discussion into the topic of youth and hate in the Internet.

this means the researcher is a subject of the study

By this definition which is considered a legal definition hate speech addresses a certain type of group but of course it depends on context. The author argues that this definition doesn't address the complexity of the topic but I'd argue it's hard to nail down a legal definition which can be cited that's agreed upon by most people. It's hard to say what the scope of hate speech is but the phrase " incitement to harm" seems sufficiently agreeable.

Indeed in the case of online authenticity, the Internet is forever changing with information coming in and out and it can be hard to present a true self when it's so easy to make a fake persona. People can believe an internet celebrity is a role model but in real life this might not be the case.

Basically, since globalization exists places are becoming more similar to each other and losing that sense of uniqueness. Of course, these places try to recreate that appeal but it's hard to be authentic in this case if theyr'e doing it just for the sake of tourism.

Thus one of the criticisms of Trump's preferences are that it shows a low level of intelligence and class which the French favor in the rarity of steak.They seem to emphasize the softness and wetness of a good steak which is nonexistent in a well done steak.

I'd definitely say that how the food looks is one of the biggest factors into preparing something, which does question how real something looks vs how it tastes. Certainly all those sauces and swirls could look cool but it could just taste like blended mush.

The modern day example is fast food commercials where the burger looks way better than what you get at the counter.

I'd agree that wine seems to have a kind of power in the act of drinking it as much as its contents which is most unlike other liquor which is drunken mostly for the induced state.

This is a strange thought because usually upper class people tend to stray away from the lower classes especially in the case of intellect. Barthes seems to suggest that pressure from class forces them to relieve themselves through a "lesser drink"

But does it make strong men weak or talkative people silent? And even so, does this always happen? I'd say this is a contradiction which does counter his belief that wine doesn't have contradictions.

This particular author clearly emphasizes that she doesn't support Trump and lambasts him on his unclassy preference for steak. She does acknowledge the counter-argument about how cooking a steak enough is more beneficial to health though.

This seems to be a near impossible task because of China's huge population and the racial component. He seems to suggest that poor people are going to stop coming but I find that hard to believe.

It seems to be suggested that most people don't and can't know what authentic food is based on limited exposure, but it's hard to do. We can't blame everything on the public if they can't pay for more expensive food.

The thing is that most Americans don't have the interest or time to know about every single nuance in every type of food which guarantees that they will have the propensity to clump categories together.

Basically, we rate foods as inferior based on how much we're willing to pay for them.

From personal experience, it seems that every Chinese buffet place I've went to has hispanic cooks and microwavable foods which does indicate that there aren't actual Chinese chefs cooking foods themselves. These places sacrifice authenticity but regardless they still draw crowds to their cheap prices.

This is extremely ironic because these ethnic foods are being made so cheap that they're not considered "authentic" any more. You can either have cheap, inauthentic food, or expensive, "real" food.(Although I would say that you could just travel abroad too).

Grant wants to make the argument that the identities in gangsta and racial boundaries work together to provide a better representation of LA, which makes sense to show how the city changed the dynamic of where black culture was constructed and how the gangsta set new boundaries.

This is a hard statement for most audiences to understand as many think the lyrics instigate violence and harm morals of listeners. The clarification seems to provide a cultural and more racially-aware reason as historical context provides reason for more authentic stories.

Very similar to country music, rap in its own way is about the stories and experiences of the singers, which seems to be a key component of what makes music authentic and popular.

It's not often that the author outright states a summary of their article, but I appreciate that I can have a preview and understand where she's placing each argument.

I can agree that nostalgia plays a hand in the sound of whiteness because it's more than just saying that country music sounds white because it came from a white background. Feelings shape the way people perceive things and nostalgia is certainly one of them.

a cause or effect

Authenticity is stated as a renewable resource which means it never seems to run out. So there never seems to be a loss of ideas to sing about that relate to the self and in particular whiteness sells well. It's like the process of making a product for the market.

A very interesting claim, but I can see why. It seems the memories of the past only come from the meaning of words and the specifics of what a song is about rather than how it sounds(as is true with other genres).

basically what makes a sound unique, what makes a piano sound like a piano and not like a trumpet, or in this case what makes country music sound like country music

dominance of a social group over others

"My Way" is not only relevant to Sinatra's career but to anyone who feels like they've done the best they've could and nearing the end of their careers. He sings this after 30 years in the business about how everything he's done, including his achievements and pitfalls, are done in his own way, which I feel captures the spirit of authenticity in a musical sense. It captures his success as a world'famous musician and even if I'm still young, I am proud to believe that everything I've done in my life was through my own actions and feelings.

Ok, this leads back to my earlier point, so given historical context, in this case the prevalence of patriarchal societies, women have been forced to act inferior which then affects how they view themselves.

Taylor names specific groups like feminism in particular due to how much of an impact they have on humanity in general and how easy it is to develop the concept of misrecognition through these groups given historical context.

the use of the term mirror implies that the misrecognized people have a hand in developing a demeaning view of themselves which then other people expand upon. So this could mean that the concept of misrecognition can apply to everyone and more people can be blamed for this than expected. I think its part of human nature to at least have some form of false judgement.

Wordsworth speaks about why he chose nature as the topic of his poems because feelings are more developed and are easier to be expressed without too much explanation which in relation to his Cloud poem explains why it theme is so successful(The theme of nature and how it simplistically provides satisfaction).

Rousseau detracts from another life he could have had by stating he would have been just another simple, obscure man, thus stating to readers that his melancholy experiences have helped individualize him.

which brings about the question of why he took it down in the first place-perhaps spite or jealousy

by exposing his life story he clearly intends to prove his truthfulness by asking readers if they can do the same as him

straight off the bat, Rousseau asserts authority in himself and his audience by declaring he is different anyone else

interpreting, particularly through the bible

psychological tests

Foucault would rather look at the scientific procedures of analyzing sex which proves more informational and knowledgeable than past attempts to understand the subject.

of which rose Freud who also believed sex was a fundamental part of psychology. I believe he would have agreed with many of Foucault's points regarding how sex and confession are connected.

church member confesses sins to priest and is given absolution for forgiveness

curious to see not earlier than that

So basically what even the confessor doesn't even know about him or herself, a confession can hold more than just what is meant to be said

1 Ok, this was a mouthful, but what I think I understood was that he wanted to take common elements of life and throw in his own imagination to expand and relate them as vivid as possible. He's taking dirt and making a bonsai tree out of it.

3 So it appears no other writers stood out from the pack? I find it strange that he is assuming readers are reading the same styles and words when there were plenty of great poets in the 19th century like Dickinson and Thoreau. Maybe he wasn't aware of their works or did not consider them unique.

2 Even though Wordsworth was disinclined to make a preface, he found it necessary to explain to his audience his point of view and his thoughts into making these poems. It wasn't enough to just shove his poems into peoples' faces, even more so with controversial poems; he had to develop his own personal thoughts to share.

1. To get background info on why these poems were controversial, Wordsworth has been vying for common speech among the people which in the 1800s was very rare. Even poetry was very biased as certain types of poems were favored over others which in his case was epic over lyric.

So what counts as too long? It may be hard for some people to condense their thoughts.

While my partner took the side of nature in the age-old question of nature vs nurture, I chose nurture as I believe we are born Originals or blanks slates in that people are influenced by their environment. I don't think a child can be born racist, but is raised in such ways by racist guardians or parents. To die as Copies, one must emulate the thoughts and actions of another which can happen through teachings and interactions of peers and elders. It can be nearly impossible for someone to be wholly original in today's world due to the fact that we intake information from people and formulate it into an identity. I am who I am because of teachings from school, relationships with friends, and morals from my family, so I can't necessarily say I'm my own self. What does it mean to be original in this modern world? It's hard to claim ideas which have never existed before or aren't similar to any others.