It is a good idea but would would take a lot of time.

The have been and are fabricated

Againm, requires a lot of close reading and only works with cheap, poorly resources projects.

This is the "check the links" advice Wineburg talks about.

This also seems complex and time consuming IT requires deep, close reading.

But that will only catch bad, sloppy AI disinfo sites. Soon they will be better..

This is CRAAP all over again.

But rates of employment don't tell you much about the quality of jobs, the balance of power (surveillance, privacy, bargaining power) or the ways in which AI integrates with a host of social issues, not least are market power and monopoly, and information asymmetry. And it says nothing about impacts on consumers and citizens.

Ben face to face 305 from sp 2024 (or 2023?)

Ben Online 305 from sp 2024

Carl Hybrid 305

Powerful and odious

Wow, he comes out and says it

Use as lens

This captures a central dilemma, and a new phase of digital life. Monopoly plus lock in plus protocols stopping interoperability plus network effects plus ability of big players to kill or buy competitors, we are left with few choices and rapidly deteriorating services.

This is a crucial point - control of our own data, and the freedom to move it, is essential. And we need tech giants to adhere to standards that let us move from one platform to another.

Yes, they even claimed they owned your your cellphone number, which massively raised switching costs - if you dared switch providers you lost all your contacts - a smaller version of the Facebook lock in dilemma.

Enshittification part 3

I suspect this is an important shift in how people consume news and information, especially given that so many people get their news from Facebook. It radically decontextualizes texts, and erodes understanding of rhetorical situations.

I don't use Facebook, so can someone who does say if this account seems accurate? It resonates with my experience on other platforms like Twitter and TikTok.

What do you make of this claim - what is he saying, and what are the implications? Why is this a problem, and how much of a problem is it? How does this relate to other points made by Doctorow?

This is the part I'm not so sure about. I like the "life cycle" metaphor, but are companies like Google and Facebook destined to die? That seems more a question of politics than biological inevitability. With the AI hype-machine-tsunami bearing down on us, and both companies about to drive it and cash in on it, and access more venture capital, and thus buy more politicians and pay for more lobbyists and think tanks and regulations and political influence, must they in fact die?

What can we note about the language Doctorow uses, his style of writing, and the way this relates to his persuasive strategies?

What do you make of this claim - what is he saying, and what are the implications? How does this relate to other points made by Doctorow - how does it reinforce or connect with them?

Why it matters - AI generated images are already integrated into all kinds of products we use, and used to create political advertising.

test

claim

The first sentence immediately takes you into and out of the novel. Weird huh?

tell me if you see this.

Talk about self referential - in the first sentence the author describes the readers experience of reading the first sentence of his novel. REPLY TO THIS COMMENT IF YOU SET UP HYPOTHESIS!

Good point

Horrifying but pretty accurate

That is true, crucial, and enormously depressing

In these opening remarks we see a kind of "humility topos" as S mentions the honor of speaking at TED, but perhaps also aims a slight dig when saying he usually spends his time in different places - low income communities and projects and jails (he will return later to this contrast between the flash of TED and tech obsessives, and issues such as racial justice). He says he can see see TED has an identity, and identity is important. This introduces a key theme.

what you talkng bout willis?

Isn't part of the discomfort people feel due to the fact that a) it asks them to imagine something implausible, and b) they may be involing a kind of Kantianism - what if everone did this?

Take the larger point that people tend to "align their moralization with their own lifestyles." But I find these examples a bit implausible. Eating a Big Mac is unconscionable? Maybe in the rarified circles Pinker moves in. Besides, the liberal virtue is signaled by driving an electric car, not a Volvo. But again, this framing seems absurd. Is that the only or main reason people buy electric cars, to "virtue signal"?

Examples seem a bit neat and simplistic? Perhaps designed to provoke the woke NYT audience a bit. Same with smoking and hotels eg. I think it's more that some % of customers have issues such as asthma, allergies etc., and others don't like smelly rooms, whether cigarette smoke, vape odors, mold odors, etc. I'm sure there are cultural and psychological issues at play also.

Also makes me wonder about the morality "switch." I can see the morality of eating meat from many angles, and once more, it's less about shaming some individual, or feeling virtuous, than it is thinking about the systems we participate in and the effects they have, and how these can be steered in better directions.

Maybe. One question I have is that this assumes we think of morality largely in terms of individual beliefs or actions. But when I think of the really big problems that I feel carry the most weight, I find myself confronting structures and systems of power, blocks of economic interest, networks of institutions and influence, ideologies etc. For example, I think it's quite immoral that people die in the US because they can't afford basic things like insulin, due to a messed up healthcare system. I can point to executives from big Pharma, and think they are in some sense immoral. But really they are players in a system whose morality I find fault with.

I wonder about this very dualistic "on/off" framework. Isn't moral reasoning integrated into many other kinds of thinking and feeling? Can't it exist on more of a spectrum? Can't I imagine the moral dimensions of an issue from many angles, or try to consider it from several different frameworks, perhaps with different moral assumptions?

This again sounds like Chomskyan linguistics - there are "switches" in the "organ" or language and so we automatically process language in certain ways. We have no choice. But not sure the analogy works, or perhaps leads him to oversimplify.

The examples of a moral sense in primates is fascinating, and to my mind, is one of the strongest arguments for the idea that there may be strong moral pre-dispositions in humans that are in some broad sense connected to evolutionary processes (themselves not purel natural). The work of Franz de Waal is perhaps most impressive in this regard. He gives many other examples - chimps that will "go on strike" if partnered with another chimp to do work that requires two, yet given vastly unequal reward (eg cucumber versus grape. Chimps hate cucumbers but will eat if very hungry, while grapes are their favorite).

De Waal also shows pretty convincingly that there are different cultures within spacies, and these can vary a lot.

Fascinating move. Studying morality is like studying astronomy, and just as grand and noble a venture. Again, naturalization at work.

Quite the centrality move. His topic is one of the most important topics in existence, with dramatic implications for how we approach the meaning of life.

Morality is "an organ." He says the same thing about language, (I think takes that phrase from Chomsky.) It's not that such an approach is necessarily entirely wrong, but seems too narrow, and subtly pushes the reader (in this case the general reader of NYT Magazine) to accept a whole set of assumptions before the game has really begun.

interesting move - compares "moral illusions" to "visual illusions." But many of the "illusions" he goes on to describe are really thought experiments cooked up by philosophers, and some of these seem problematic. Even his "illusion" example, of the tendency to lionize Mother Teresa over Gates and Borlaug, seems to rest more on ignorance than illusion. Most people don't rate Borlaug because they've never heard of Borlaug. I'm familiar with writers such as Hitchens on Mother Teresa (esp. his rather uncharitable The Missionary Postion) so it never occurred to me she should top the list. I suppose one could ask why our culture values Gates and M. Teresa so much, but that's a far more complex question. By comparing moral illusions and visual illusions, he smuggles in the idea that morality is a "sense" that can be tricked. Again - there is interesting research suggesting that our emotions and moral intuitions may have evolutionary roots, and they influence each other. But that's a more nuanced argument.

Classic Pinker. This new field is "unmasking" the sixth sense, our moral sense. He could say evo psych researchers are making arguments, and one way of thinking about morality is that it shares some similarities with physical senses, although the analogy is obviously partial at best. "Real" academics "unmask," revealing the pre-existing truth of an underlying human nature that we can identify through brain scans and lab work. The way he argues is very similar to Chomsly (as linguist) and echoes Chomskyan theory.

Pinker describes a fascinating, rich new area of research. But he moves quickly to naturalize key terms and claims, trying to move a lot outside argument before he begins. If we accept this initial framing (or don't notice it) then much of the rest follows.

Examples seem a bit neat and simplistic? Perhaps designed to provoke the woke NYT audience a bit. Same with smoking and hotels eg. I think it's more that some % of customers have issues such as asthma, allergies etc., and others don't like smelly rooms, whether cigarette smoke, vape odors, mold odors, etc. I'm sure there are cultural and psychological issues at play also.

Fascinating move. Studying morality is like studying astronomy, and is just as grand and noble a venture. Again, naturalization at work. Not to say he's wrong, but that his rhetoric - the way he frames, names, defines and persuades, subtly asks that we think of morality largely as biological and natural. But other ways of thinking about morality certainly exist, and this way of talking tends to eliminate them from consideration.

Pinker presents the examples of Gates, Borlaug and Mother Teresa to illustrate one of his main points - that we are vulnerable to "moral illusions," and these illusions are like tricks that can be played on our physical senses.

This is an important theme, and it is also tied to another claim he will explore, namely that we can through reflection and training and education, learn to arrive at less "automatic," reactive forms of moral reasoning, and arrive at moral conclusions that are better, smarter, and more accurate (plus we'll need this, he suggests, to tackle problems like climate change).

The title captures much of his project - Pinker wants us to think of morality as an "instinct," something largely unconscious, biological, and part of our human nature. It is part of our evolutionary shaping.

This is likely to intrigue and surprise many readers, as this isn't how we normally think of morality.

The examples of a moral sense in primates is fascinating, and to my mind, is one of the strongest arguments for the idea that there may be strong moral pre-dispositions in humans that are in some broad sense connected to evolutionary processes (themselves not purely natural). The work of Franz de Waal is perhaps most impressive in this regard. He gives many other examples - chimps that will "go on strike" if partnered with another chimp to do work that requires two chimps to collaborate, yet are given vastly unequal reward (eg cucumber versus grape. Chimps hate cucumbers but will eat if very hungry, while grapes are their favorite).

De Waal also shows pretty convincingly that there are different cultures within spacies, and these can vary a lot.

Quite the "centrality move." His topic is one of the most important topics in existence, with dramatic implications for how we approach the meaning of life.

Morality is "an organ." He says the same thing about language, (I think takes that phrase from Chomsky.) It's not that such an approach is necessarily entirely wrong, but seems too narrow, and subtly pushes the reader (in this case the general reader of NYT Magazine) to accept a whole set of assumptions before the game has really begun.

Pinker writes that this new field is "unmasking" the sixth sense, aka our moral sense. He could say evo psych researchers are making "arguments," and one way of thinking about morality is that it shares some similarities with physical senses, although the analogy is obviously partial at best. "Real" academics "unmask," revealing the pre-existing truth of an underlying human nature that we can identify through brain scans and lab work. The way he argues is very similar to Chomsly (as linguist) and echoes Chomskyan theory.

Pinker describes a fascinating, rich new area of research. But he moves quickly to "naturalize" key terms and claims, trying to move a lot outside argument before he begins. If we accept this initial framing (or don't notice it) then much of the rest follows.

Interesting rhetorical move - compares "moral illusions" to "visual illusions." But many of the "illusions" he goes on to describe are really thought experiments cooked up by philosophers, and some of these seem problematic. Even his "illusion" example, of the tendency to lionize Mother Teresa over Gates and Borlaug, seems to rest more on ignorance than illusion. Most people don't rate Borlaug because they've never heard of Borlaug. I'm familiar with writers such as Hitchens on Mother Teresa (esp. his rather uncharitable The Missionary Postion) so it never occurred to me she should top the list. I suppose one could ask why our culture values Gates and M. Teresa so much, but that's a far more complex question. By comparing moral illusions and visual illusions, he advances the idea that morality is a "sense" that can be tricked. Again - there is interesting research suggesting that our emotions and moral intuitions may have evolutionary roots, and they influence each other. But that's a more nuanced argument.

He could even accomplish this during hurricane Maria, in Puerto Rico. He went there and claimed only a few dozen had died, bullying local officials, who desperately needed aid, to agree, then contested all the other numbers. But in fact it was over 3000, on par with Katrina and 9-11. But because it was far enough away, and the real numbers trickled in slowly, he could get away with the false numbers.

I guess one question worth asking is whether this speech creates allies and calls to action everyone? Again, not to use white fragility as excuse, but given how all this is framed, will this help cause action and movement, or acrimony and misumderstanding?

But I don't see where they have codified white supremacy (unless this happens by default whenever anyone white uses language) or how they have killed people of color.

This seems far too simple - these problems can't be boiled down to the decision to judge "others by our own standards." School shootings, the sudden irruptions of anti immigrant and anti globalization sentiments aren't one thing and aren't explicable in terms of intent or individual judgment.

It seems as if he is gathering together a vast set of horrible things and reducing them to something very simple.

I wonder if one can reframe that. Standards exist - they always do. And standards sometimes are established in ways that reflect the backgrounds and norms of the dominant group, and can intentionally or unintentionally exclude and oppress. But they don't always, and we still need standards of some kind. So in India, there is a battle over whether Hindi can be the one dominant standard, and others should be forced to use it (street signs used to be in both English and Hindi, and with the rise of fascist, far right Hindu nationalism, are now only in Hindi). A person speaking English in northern India might be resisting dominant standards, while that same person giving a lecture in the US could be imposing white language supremacy?

Also - isn't part of our job as writing teachers to provide access to dominant discourses, and to the discourses of professional and academic life. These are in some way hegemonic disocurses, but one can teach these in a variety of ways, including through a critical lens. But as Delpit suggests in Other People's Children, teachers can aim to provide "access to the codes of power of "Standard" English,"

She argues many teachers fail to reveal the rules of the culture of power since they are "frequently least aware of the linguistic and cultural power they hold. As a result, these teachers impede the academic and social success of "other people's children" who need to survive in a society that demands fluency in "Standard" English for economic and political success.

Inoue seems to ignore these inds of fraught, complex debates. Or more generously, his purpose is outrage and action and a call to arms. And in this I think he is partially successful.

If I can try to answer honestly, I guess I've always assumed white people as participants in white racism ARE part of "the problem" in some significant sense. So that part doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. What makes me confused and unsettled is the way this frames issues and constructs problems..

Moving to labor based assessment, or interrogating language practices in composition will start a revolution? This is where I get a bit vexed. I'm mostly on board with what I think is the main purpose here, but I find myself frustrated when I try to correlate the language and the actual objectives. Revolution? How about we survive the pandemic and demand everyone have healthcare, childcare, affordable high quality public education, a liveable min wage, serious efforts to deal with climate change (a green new deal) and similar programs that would radically change everyone's everyday lives? If that's what he means by revolution, OK. But if it he just means changing assessment practices and teaching language ideologies? Then I'm unimpressed.

Seems a reasonable critique of much academic posturing. The funniest example is perhaps the star radical academics at places like Yale who talk about Marxism and post structuralism and many other isms, but ended up being on the wrong end of labor disputes several times when grad students or food workers asked for things like health insurance or better conditions or a union.

Ignore - not in original. I think what I was getting at was that the idea of "white language" is far too simple. My wife is from southern India. Hindi is the national language but English is spoken by many in the south as a kind of resistance (it's complicated). I've seen Indian men swear at her because they wanted/expected her to speak Hindi (she knows just a few words) and would speak English to them in reply. But recent Hindu nationalists hate English (it is the language of the (white) colonizer, as well as the language of resistance for some in the South). She also speaks a very proper, British English. So is she speaking "white" English? Does "white" English change when spoken by a brown person who is being attacked by another brown person who wishes to impose their nativist linguistic preferences and silence her? It all seems a bit simplistic and one-dimensional.

I looked up reviews of Takaki (looks fascinating). But his argument seems to be that American notions of a republic presupposed a form of subjecthood and citizenship that was in some sense white. Or it took a set of values relating to citizenship (disciplined, productive, virtuous, self-possessed, etc.) that were associated with whiteness. I guess one hears this today in things like Sarah Palins talk of "real America" and "real Americans," and Trump supporters "I want my country back." But Inoue's intepretation of this seems very grim. The polity is forever defined by whiteness and white supremacy? Can't citizenship and what it means to be a republic change? By 2050 (if we haven't destroyed the planet) we will be marjority minority.

As he dials his argument back a little here, and clarifies it, I'm more on board. Understanding and celebrating the diversity of language practices our students have, and relativizing powerful standards makes sense.

But...while these linguistic riches should be celebrated, don't we also have to be attentive to the fact that they may not purchase what the students want outside the classroom, or even in other disciplines? If part of the job of first year writing is to help students gain transferable competencies and practices that will help them in their other classes, don't we need to teach certain "standard" or "powerful" forms?

This seems like a strange version of the conservative idea of "moral hazard," and the "teach a man to fish" rather than "giving him a fish" idea. What is odd is that I doubt very few in the audience hold such views.

What is the "hunger" of non-white students? Is it one thing? Do my Brahmin students whose parents came from Delhi, and are secretly quite racist and identify wiith upper class white culture, and my Nigerian-American student whose parents are doctors, and my Afghan refugees, and my first gen working class African American student who wants to be an engineer - do they all have the same "hunger"? Do they all inhabit English the same way? Do they all want me to sit with them and listen and ask if they are suffering and whether I read their languaging properly?

I'm potentially on board with some of this, but I'm desperate for a more concrete grounding and explanation of what he means. I need white standards of English explained and illustrated (the NCTE Frameworks doc seems a bad example - he never explains how it is racist, and seems to dither over whether it even is). And do students really not need to master the discourses of power and professionalism? Really? Have you asked them? How about you take a poll, or conduct a wide ranging data analysis. "They only need it because we keep teaching it." So if we stop teaching argument analysis and academic discourse, they won't need it in all their other classes? If we stop teaching technical communication, they won't need it? I'm confused. Doesn't much of this depend on the kind of writing class your are teaching? He seems to lump all writing classes together. I can imagine a writing class where the focus is language ideologies and the ways in which racist discourses operate, and which critically examines standards, and examines how all kinds of excluded language forms work and are important. But must all classes do this, regardless of institutional context or the goals of students?

There is just one? As a "Pakeha" from New Zealand, a term non-native people use in NZ from those who are not Maori, and which has been adopted by most white people as an identity, and as someone who feels pretty scially awkward and habitualy out of sync with the habitus, I find this...weird.

This seems a useful component of teaching. But it also seems a rather therapeutic approach to teaching. Aren't there other dimensions? Don't teachers also know something students don't, and isn't part of their job to help students learn this? Is it only writing teachers who should do this - should chemistry teachers, and history teachers also take this stance - or only composition teachers, and if so, why?

I worry I am missing something important here. But the implication seems to be that since the mere presence of white bodies perpetuates racism, white bodies must be removed, or we must have a huge adjustment in the balance of white and non-white bodies? The latter is of course something we hope for, and has been happening in the field, but is that all it takes - proportional representation and the racism and killing stops? I am confused and concerned.

This all sounds like good pedagogy.

James Paul Gee has a sympathetic but also critical take on Freirean pedagogy that points out the ways in which it is ultimately coercive and does in fact privilege a particular set of principles and conclusions. That doesn't make it bad - but Inoue's account accepts the idealized version of Freirean pedagogy.

I'm pretty agnostic on assessment standards. In fact I'd say I'm pretty skeptical and wish we could do away with them, finding other frameworks and incentive systems, as exists at some univerisities (UCSC, Reed, etc.). But how on earth can one connect this to black men being shot in the streets? There is much more to a teacher than a rubrc. How much does the teacher care about the student, reach out to her, make herself available, etc etc.? What if the teacher has a really flexible, sophisticated, labor based assessment system, but is really hostile and unsupportive?

This is harsh judgment - I shudder to think that is what I do. It's a chillng metaphor. It "feels" false, but perhaps I am inhabiting the kind of denial and defensiveness he disgnoses.

This I find hard to parse. White bodies perpetuate white language supremacy by being white, and white bodies automatically perpetuate racism, just as "black bodies attract unwarranted police aggression by being black."

This is really interesting and provocative, but I'm not sure how to interpret it as I don't think I quite understand what he is saying here. I recognize this language from chapter 4 of Yancey's Backlash. He talks of "racially saturated white spaces," and gives accounts of what it is like to feel as if these spaces were designed for white people, and the ways white people feel at home in them. I guess I can see this in relation to all the names, pictures, statues, etc., on places like campuses, although as a foreigner so much of this doesn't feel quite as Yancey describes even though I'm white. I think there is something in this, although again, I wonder if this oversimplifies the ways in which such dynamics operate.

At the same time, Inoue seems to take this point in a stranger direction. White languge supremacy is perpetuated through the presence of the white bodies in the audience. So is the answer...removal?

Amen

Now that does seem insincere. Finding fault seems a pretty huge, explicit, central part of this entire piece. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with finding fault. But why say that isn't the point?

Inspiring, but perhaps also a bit unsettling to the academics of color who don't feel they fully want to be spoken for in this way.

One of the more provocative claims. This certainly set off a lively discusion on the WPA listerv.

This seems a call to action (as much of the first section of the paper is) that is certainly worth considering.

This seems a bit straw man-ish, and to conflate many things in an odd way.

I don't know any academics who argue racist problems are mostly about economics, or laziness, or bad values. This seems strange. No (or very few serious) academics would argue laziness or bad values cause social problems. Some would argue there is a complex relationship between racist ideologies and economic policies.

This seems to conflate a strain of conservative thinking (poor people of color are poor because they make bad moral choices, or are lazy) with certain popular leftist arguments that class and economics drive many racial problems. But one is left wondering who makes these arguments and why they are lumped in this way.

This may be a pet peeve, but I feel many in the the discipline fail to think sociologically about these kinds of questions, and focus far too much on what is right in front of their noses - language, assessment, feedback, etc. Consider, for example, Ira Kaznelson's When Affirmative Action Was White, and Rothstein's The Color of Law. They describe how the huge, transformative public policy programs of the New Deal and Fair Deal, as well as areas like housing policy, lending, zoning, etc. gave enormous, staggering, transformative boosts to white Americans, while systematically excluding people of color. The largest middle class the world has known was created through a slew of programs that people of color were excluded from, and a whole set of policies, esp, housing and lending and zoning and penal, made sure to engrave racism in our schools, housing, urban geographies, prisons, and in wealth accumulation (most family wealth is generated via the transfer of housing value from one generation to the next). Obviously many other forms of racism were important, but this huge framework of laws, regulations, and policies both reflected racism, and were absolutely crucial in reproducing it, with affects the have an enormous impact today.

Yes racism is overdetermined. I'm just skeptical that how teachers assess or give feedback to students in first year university writing classes matters much. I say that (I hope) not defensively or out of a sense of guilt or to deflect blame. I just think we could change everything about how we give feedback and assess writing (we could even follow Inoue's "labor based" model of assessment) and this would change...nothing.

Furthermore, from my perspective, the great strains and stresses on universities that I see doing the most to undermine education come largely from the neoliberalization of higher ed - the relentless defunding of public ed and shifting of costs to students, in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest; casualization of labor, deprofessionalization, adjunctification, the explosion of class sizes to save costs, etc etc. Those things drive pedagogy in many ways. Most of our writing teachers teach 5 sections of 30 students, and sometimes other sections at community college. They work 70-80 hours a week. Their feedback and assessment practices are driven largely by these material considerations. In such situations poor students, first gen students, students of color, may suffer most as they don't have all the support and familiarity with university that other students do. These kinds of issues seem largely ignored by Inoue, although I imagine he must be aware of them.

I can't quite figure out what this means. Beyond that, the text seems to establish a set of equivalences that seem hard to square, even if they are meant figuratively. There is the literal caging of people of color, esp. African Americans, driven by racism. Assessing and giving feedback to student writing is also racist, part of a racism that imprisons people of color disproportionately. In this we figuratively imprison our (colored only?) students and ourselves (all teachers?)

This seems at the heart of his argument, that the way academics assess, and give feedback to students of color, maintain white supremacy. I think it is in some sense possible to varying degrees, but seems to oversimplify, or ignore, mountains of research, and huge debates on this very topic. There is, for example, evidence that under-served students, and poor students of color, benefit most from first year writing classes, where the conventions of academic discourse are decoded, and where, in their first year, they get to meet a teacher who knows them by name, is a small class where they know other students, etc. That is, there is a lot of research to suggest that these classes are where students are able to find a sense of belonging, connection, support, etc.

Intrigued by the "us" created here. On the one hand it's everyone of color vs. everyone who is white. This clarifies in some sense what he will go on to say. But it also lumps together different minorities in ways that sweep away a lot of very difficult issues. For examine, at SDSU there are far, far more faculty from India and China in the Humanities (most foreign born) than there are African Americans. These people tend to come from middle and upper middle class backgrounds, and from environments where access to high quality education is relatively available. My sense is this is also true in the field of rhet/comp.

My kids are an example of that demographic, and my eldest daughter seems to want to go into academia. My sense is that she has very, very little in common with the US prison population, and although she may at some point experience some kinds of racism, it's odd to imagine she is oppressed, or ever will be, in anything like the ways particular groups of people of color are in the US. I hesistate to speak for the faculty of color with backgrounds from India, Pakistan, China, Japan, etc., but my guess is most would feel somewhat similar.

Inoue, as he says, is white and Japanese, and I also wonder how much he has in common with the racialized population of US inmates.

Again, I'm not sure how to read this, but one (perhaps ungenerous) interpretation is that this seems a bit coercive, and to once more smuggle in assumptions rather than arguing for them. I don't know who is demanding he "must" ask for patience. If he hadn't asked, or had just explained why he wanted to do this, would anyone have objected, or even been that surprised? Furthermore, white supremacy certainly exists. It exists in many, many aspects of our lives, and has profound affects. But the sequencing of audience address in keynote speeches at 4C's seems a place where white supremacy does not have all that much purchase. Perhaps the term "white supremacy" itself is part of the problem? I'm not sure of the rhetorical benefit of lumping everything from his felt need to ask for patience, to micro-aggressions, to slavery into one category. This is not at all to trivialize his concerns, or try to evade his argument, but to suggest we need to keep our eyes on the big drivers and manifestations of white supremacy.

This is a really interesting set of sentences. It echoes the intro to George Yancey's Backlash: What Happens When We Talk Honestly About Racism in America. Yancey's book emerged from his "Dear White America" columns for the NYT, and the ferocious, staggering racism with which these columns were received by some white Americans. The book asks white readers to think honestly and deeply about impulses to deny, ignore, or get angry when racism is discussed. But I have several reactions to Inoue's framing. 1) It could be a way of asking white readers to do the kind of careful introspection Yancey describes.2) it could be a way of framing things that constructs in advance objections or challenges as "hurt" and resentment at hearing Inoue's "honesty," his revealing of racial wounds. It also frames things in terms of love/hate, honesty/dishonesty, wounding/healing. In this scenario, if I disagree with Inoue am I necessarily accusing him of doing something "wrong," or refusing racial healing? This second framing seems to move things away from the space of argument and debate and into some other space. Perhaps that space is valuable in some ways. But this framing carried into the later online discussions of Inoue's text, and was used by some to dismiss critique as refusal to acknowledge racial injury or refusal to acknowledge the reality if racism in the U.S.

The title seems to suggest an equivalency - white language supremacy is implicated in people killing each other. But like much of the speech, there seems a potential tension between the performative, the provocative, and the declarative. It is certainly provocative - white language supremacy is announced as the focus. It is to a large extent presupposed, and that is one of the frustrations of the piece. But perhaps that misreads his purpose, which may be to provoke and perform and agitate for a serious conversation around vital matters?

This is really interesting but very complex. It requires far more unpacking.

This is one of the most powerful ways the new era of social media differs from past eras (early internet, days of America online, web 2.0, etc)

Problem 5: surveillance

Problem 4: this is a rather terrifying statement. Many end up feeling forced to participate to avoid being defined by others.

Potential downside 3: loss of control of your images and words.

Potential downside number 2: can detract from real relationships and spread people too thin to invest in connections that matter.

Potential downside number 1: false sense of connection that can waste emotional energy.

How equally available is this? Doesn't it require "mini-celebrity" to work?

This is interesting, but does it also raise certain questions and problems? Does it make sense to know more about a stranger's life, who you will likely never meet, than about your sisters?

Snape is a genius, his take on gun control is magical.

Odd expression - seems rather old-fashioned.

This seems a long wayt from a complete body paragraph, and it isn't clear how you will connect the CNN story to Boyd.

Boyd argues.....

Make sure to stress you are giving an account of Boyd's claims.

words missing?

All human societies use technology.

See the prompt and try to echo the language used in it.You are going to use outside sources to extend, illustrate, complicate, etc., Boyd.

This relates rather vaguely to Boyd, but again it's very broad and "technology" remains highly ambiguous.

Could clarify. "Technology" = everything, from the wheel, to toasters, to quantum computing.

These connections seem too general. James appears to be saying it is hard to retrain older workers. That is a long, long way from Boyd's argument.

Perhaps consider using someone like Caulfield to explore how critical digital literacy might be taught (thus extending B).

See also https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/technology/digital-divide-us-fcc-microsoft.html

You need to first explain Boyd's claim about digital inequality in detail, and present quotations from her, then explain the outside source, present quotations, and explain the connections back to Boyd.

This seems a rather vague connection. it is also very brief. You need to find more, better connetions, or choose a different text that examines the educational potential of wikipedia.

revise

Good - but this needs a lot more development. Talk in more detail about how the Primer extends and illustrates Boyd's work. For example, what are some other problems and issues raised about algorith,s?

Good - but there is more you could say about the tips Caulfield presents.

This is for fact checking web sites you are unfamliiar with.

Well put.

Good.

Good

No, she cricizes this rhetoric and argues it is a damaging way of understanding digital literacy.

Good

Interesting, bu you need to link Rose-Stockwell to Boyd. So present a claim Boyd makes, plus a quotation to illustrate it, then explain how Rose-Stockwell's work extends and illustrates Boyd, and present quotes that show this.

Introduce all quotations.

This is promising. You should line up the claim from Boyd, give a quote from Boyd, then explain how Wineburg and McGrew extend and illustrate Boyd. Use quotes from M and W that you can link back to Boyd.

This is good, but the paper isn't about analyzing strategies, so this isn't really needed.

Again - this isn't the point of the paper.

I suggest you read the prompt for paper 3.

This section is meant to analyze an outside source and explain how it extends, illustrates, complicates etc. Boyd.

Not really her main point. Try to capture why she thinks the rhetoric of the digital native is problematic - what does it result in, and why?

Don't focus on Barlow. Focus on Boyd's argument. Barlow is a figure from the past (and from the band The Grateful Dead).

You haven't said who Barlow is. This isn't a useful quote to use. Try to find quotes that capture the essence of her claims, not quotes that are nearest the beginning of the text.

Problematic.

Try to use the langauge of the prompt. That is, talk about how you will extend, illustrate, or compliate etc. Boyd's text.

See MLA citation guidelines - article titles are in quotation marks (book titles in italics).

Not sure why this is included - I am unaware of anyone who thinks she is crazy.

This doesn't capture her main claims accurately. Go back to the text.

She doesn't claim this (it's from a quote by Barlow).

Good

Give a more precise account of who she is (you can use Wikipedia).

Check apostrophe use

Watch grammar - fragments and agreement. Eg "many people USE computers," not "many people USES computers."

Small extra credit opportunity. Look up "sentence fragments," "comma splices," and "subject verb agreement."

Give a brief defintion of each, a give a few examples from your writing on this blog.

Watch out for fragments (there is no verb in this esmternce).

She didn't coin these terms. Others did. She analyzes them.

No quotation (just italics)

People have...at their..(nicer agreement)

Conections are unclear - how is coding related to the quote? The quote mentions researchers being interested in researching young people. You say this connects to parents noting their kids use tech, but maybe don't code. I don't see a connection to Boyd. If you aim to connect to Boyd, state it.

I don't follow - Jack was created? Is he a "composite" of several people?

say more about topic, why matters, why care. Cases?

I will use these articles to extend and illustrate Boyd...

say more about their arguments - why algorithms matter, how they can influence our lives, and how they can cause problems

awkward

unaware

SHe thinks should be part of critical digital literacy education

Can you find other examples and other quotes to connect back to Boyd and develop the analysis?

Splice

Fragment

of

Good overview

MLA

Nice work

Good. See also this recent piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/technology/digital-divide-us-fcc-microsoft.html

Complcates and extends?

You are going to extend etc.

MLA - italics for book titles

Intersting, it moves fro malgorithms to fact checking. And it's pretty general.

Try using this text instead. https://datasociety.net/output/algorithmic-accountability-a-primer/

Good. Try to find more connections back to Boyd and use textual evidence.

Good, but could develop this paragraph, and the analysis in it. Find more connections and use quotes to discuss.

Boyd notes that...

Need to describe as a claim. This seems like a topic.

who

Say more - this is important.

Too broad

broad

Can you xplain how coplicates in more detail, or more precisely?

MLA

splice

First explain her claim (Or Boyd's)

Unclear

Need more - another text perhaps?

Maybe mention use of data for voter supprssion?

Integratin of quotes

Explain her intitial text and position first.

Good.

Intro could do more to illustrate and explain th issue and why people care.

See her other qualifications

Reframe

Perhaps you could talk about critical digital literacy (Boyd) then move to Caulfield? Alternataively, find an outside source that talks specifically about wikipedia and digital literacy, and connect taht to Boyd.

OK this is a better text to use.

I don;t think Barlow's work is a good source to use. It is very old and Boyd cites it as what is wrong.

Are you discusng Weinburg or Caulfield? I'm confused.

Good.

Isn't this a new topic? If so, create a new paragraph.

Also, try to capture Boyd's account of digital inequality more fully and precisely, with more textual evidence.

Good. See also this recent piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/technology/digital-divide-us-fcc-microsoft.html

It may help you develop this line if analysis.

Italics (see MLA).

Good, but try to refer back to the specifics of the source text in order to establish concrete connections. Otherwise it can seem as if you are talking generally and loosely about topics in both texts.

Who is the author?

Quote introduction and integration

Problem integrating quote. See They Say.

word choice (I don't follow what "remote" means here)

Good