Assured by the detailed knowledge the choice architect will have about each of us, each of us will be happily corrected in our choices
So we are going to continue to be treated as who we are as opposed to what a public intellectual wants a public to be. But is this really an issue? I'm not sure I really see why this is considered a problem
might serve as a viable middle ground in our unnecessarily polarized society
There are too much "us" versus "them" now and I feel like this is what the author is referring to
Those workers are not yet a public. But when someone says — someone writes — "Workers of the world, unite!," they become a public that is willing and able to act upon its shared situation
So these public intellectuals have to sort of make the publics by making groups of people think they need something they didnt know they even needed
she must be attuned to the sensitivities of her audience
this is kind of what we are doing in this course because we are writing about the same topic in two different ways based off of who is going to be reading it
More akin to a celebrity,
It is interesting that a public intellectual has to take the role of both an academic and a celebrity because these two things dont really seem to go together. It sort of reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio
Max Weber
He was a German sociologist
Some images, like Ron Haeberle’s pictures of the My Lai massacre, were initially kept from the public, but other violent images—Nick Ut’s scene of child napalm victims and Eddie Adams’s photo of a Vietcong man’s execution—won Pulitzer Prizes and had a tremendous impact on the outcome of the war.
Why would an editor choose to leave images like this out if they have such an impact? I can understand the military wanting to keep this secret but I dont understand why an editor would
I think that the audience of this article may be non-Palestinians and non-Israelis because it is trying to prove that the Israeli troops are doing unjust things to the rest of the world
yet they do not have bomb shelters
If bombing is such a common thing, would it be possible that this would be possible in the future?
but also about the transformation of human beings into collateral damage
this is such an inhumane way to think about things , but I wonder if they have to make themselves think this way due to cognitive dissonance. They might feel guilt over killing people so in turn they have to change their attitude and make "people" into "collateral damage"
showing how Palestinians presumably hide rockets in civilian homes.
Is there actually any proof that this is the case ? Or do the Israeli troops just use this justification so they are not seen as evil in the eyes of the world.
Contemporary Israeli cinema exists against a backdrop in which revisionist Israeli historians, in the wake of Palestinian scholars, have helped debunk the founding myths surrounding the creation of the state of Israel.
This is interesting because my research project has to do with the image of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which generally originated over land
ontag argued that photographs can move us momentarily but that they do not have the power to build an interpretation. If a photograph becomes effective in informing or moving us politically, it is only
desensitizes us from bad things happening
It must be confusing for people who consider themselves Islamic to see that word being used in various ways because it might make them confused about their own identity individually and within their culture.
I like the idea that this mural says just as much, or even more than, mere words can. I think that this is the case because when you look at a mural such as this, you feel an emotion attached to the facts it is showing you more than just words on paper or a screen can do.
I think that maybe it is symbolic that the person receiving the offering is a modern day person that could be any youth because it could show people that even they can be saved or helped even after their death
Conrad's most famous story, TheHeart of Darkness, is an ironic, even terrifyingenactment of this thesis that as the narrator puts it, “the conquest of the Earth whichmostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion, a slightlyflatter noses than ourselves is not a pretty thing, when you look into it too much. Whatredeems it, is the idea. An idea at the back of it, not a sentimental pretense but an idea,and an unselfish belief in the idea, something you can bow down before and sacrificeto.”
As I was reading this essay it made me think of when I read The Heart of Darkness in my junior year of high school and I think it relates well to the idea that white men, or the West, thought that they could go into Africa and basically take over because they genuinely thought that they had the right to so.
It is interesting that he believes that the West is "winning" because there is no real proof that the way that the Western World is run is better than the way other parts of the world are run. It seems like a very narrow view to say that only Western nations should continue to prosper in order for the world to be "right".
The great divisions among humankind and thedominating source of conflict will be cultural. The clash of civilizations will dominateglobal politics.
It is an interesting idea that the conflicts that will arise in the future among humankind will be between people of different cultures as opposed to people of different classes such as the lower and upper classes. This certainly does seem to be the case because I feel there is a lot of conflict between different countries but I also feel like, in the United States for example, there is definitely increasing conflict between different classes.