Reading Response 6: Politics and the English Language

In this reading by George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", it clearly shows what he is implying to is that the English language has changed within the years and it has changed to the worst thanks to political writings. Writers has became more vague and inept towards getting to a point or basically explaining what they are trying to convey. Ready made phrases are used to make a sentence instead of using or creating phrases by themselves because this is more easier for the writers. Orwell calls this meaningless words because, by his standards these words are just long sentences going on and on about something without really going to the point and this abuse makes the English language look very bad. Also, by using for example Latin words gives an impression that the writer has class and elegance in his writing, which however backfires and does not explain what they are trying to say, this actually moves his focus further away from the target of the topic.

Metaphor in this reading is mentioned over and over again because these dying metaphors that are used has lost its meaning and the writers blindly use this metaphors to describe what they are trying to say instead of actually thinking and describing something they are trying to explain using their very own words. Which also shows how the writer does not know what he or she is talking about and further proves that he has not interest in writing about the topic. These are basically the main causes of downfall in the English language. However, it is not too late to fix this, there are numerous ways to get our message across in a paper as a writer and it involves using the simplest words to explain conrete thoughts in our minds and not ready made phrases and unrelated metaphors.

After reading this paper, it made me realize how much I have been into this same loop hole of never ending explanation without ever getting to the point just to be able to impress readers with jargon words which are meaningless. With this help and new information I hope I will be able to avoid these common mistakes created by political writings to further improve my convey in thoughts.

Reading Response 5: "YES/ NO/ OKAY, BUT" Three Ways to Respond

For this reading, it clearly explains the development of a stance in an argumentative essay. In order to create a strong stance, we need to basically respond in a certain manner, and that is by using the three different ways of responding to an issue, which are disagreeing, agreeing or agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. This may sound easy, but in order to create a strong stance it needs to be explained or proven otherwise.

For instance when disagreeing, it is important to not only explain and back it up with facts but also able to convince readers with your own statements and reasoning by making it very obvious to the reader. However by agreeing, it is important to point out something that the facts that you used probably forgot or failed to mention. The tricky part comes to when you have to disagree and agree at the same time because it is hard to not contradict yourself when coming up with this stance.

These methods are very important and will help me a lot in introducing my stance in my argumentative paper because it creates a more complex argument that separates it to the common thinking and view of that issue.

Ploitics and the English Language

In George Orwell's essay on, "Politics and the English Language", Orwell strongly explains and criticizes the distortion of our modern English language, as well as the destructive influences that politics has continued to have on the writing process. Orwell disputes the fact that over time our use of descriptive and accurate language has declined immensely. As a result, the composition of writing begins to lack more and more truth. This is due to political and economic causes, which in time may end up becoming effects, or visa versa. Not only is this concealing many political problems, but it creates a disguise for thought, especially among those who do not know the truth. We are unaware of what is actually going on, so therefore, our characterization, our language, is inevitably lost. We begin to use "foolish" language that represents our "foolish" thoughts. Writing becomes pointless, vague, and misinterpreted. The point of views that others may have, can in no way, be expressed properly. We do not understand our thoughts, they become unclear and concealed, so therefore we are unable to express our feelings accurately.

The point of George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language", is to get rid of these "foolish ways" and become one with our thoughts. Our thoughts can guide or imagination, as well as our form of communication.

"Yes/No/Okay, But"

The reading “Yes/No/Okay, But” has made me think about how to correctly construct a Argument paper. There was allot of good points in this reading. The first I would say would be that for every topic there is a argument against it and the argument against it also has an argument against it. I like this because we all have opinions and have to build off each others thoughts to make are own thoughts. This process can be very can be difficult because you might ague against a source that you are using as a credited source in you paper. So you have to except other peoples opinions and analyze them very accurately. Then you respond with the understanding of there view and argue against it with a opposing view while not destroying the credibility of any of the sources. The second point I want to touch on is all of the templates that show how to “twist it“ and the “duh“ move. I can come back to theses in the future if I find myself struggling with disagreeing and agreeing in my paper.

Politics and the English Language

After reading George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language it makes me remember the Navy. I was in the navy for four years during that time I saw this type of writing and speeches all the time. The mono tone of lies that the higher ups tell all the blue collar workers. I chose a quote that sums up what I am saying. “When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases-bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy”(Orwell 6). I remember when the vice president came to the base in Norfolk, Virginia and he gave a speech on one of the carriers. It was like a robot talking he even sounded like a robot. I thought it would be pretty interesting listening to his speech. It wasn’t though it was a horrible speech and the reason is that he had no sincerity to it he was just reading some crap off a piece of paper. All of us sailors don’t want to here a bunch of back and forth arguments that make no since not to mention if you ask a question it will be answered with about five pages of bullshit and still not answer the question that you asked. This happens all over in the navy actually the whole time I was serving my country. I suppose that it has to be this way because when it comes to the military you just don’t know what might happen and the answers your given one day can completely change from the next. This reading will help me on my unit 3 paper in getting to the point and not just going on and on with a bunch of nonsense when you could simply just sum it up in a sentence or two.

They Say, I Say: Three ways to Respond

The reading titled, "Yes/No/Okay, But", meticulously describes the three most common ways to respond in an arument paper. These primary responses are illustrated through the acts of agreeing, disagreeing, and a mixture of both. No matter what kind of stance you decide to take, for, against, or both, it is extremely important to declare your position as soon as possible. This will allow the audience to become fully aware of your point of view, as well as your personal reasons for your particular opinion. The audience will reach a point of appreciation for you as a writer, as well as your purpose.

It is easy to agree, but the act of agreeing can get a bit boring, especially if you are just repeating the views you agree with. Not only is it essential to get through to your audience in a clear and persuasive way, but it is also important to have flavor throughout your paper. In other words, in order to characterize your own opinion on a particular matter there must be a sense of something new, something different, something someone has never touched on or brought to the surface. For example, a new way of looking at the problem or in many cases, how to fix it. In any argument paper, the act of agreeing results in some sort of dispute resulting from opinion. The point is, state your opinion and why, and then use your evidence to creatively relay your message/central point.

In order to disagree fully, it is crucial to support your opinion through a variety of reasons why. There is more to it than just stating the fact that you do not agree. Give yourself something to contribute, give the audience a reason to hear your side. The author portrays this act of contribution through the "duh" and "twist it" moves. In other words, it is helpful to take a step back and not necessairily disagree entirely with your position. It is beneficial to make a personal assumption on the point of view. This will add a new idea or a new way of looking at whatever you are disagreeing on.

The act of agreeing and disagreeing at the same time adds a whole new feel to an argument paper. this allows the audience to agree OR disagree. The audience can make up their own opinion on the topic, without feeling obligated to strictly agree or disagree. This adds flexability and complexity to an argument paper.

This reading has opened my eyes to a variety of ways to respond in an argument paper. Personally, I have always thought that you either had to agree completely, or disagree completely. I had no idea that you could combine both views and, in the process, create a a flexible basis for the audience. After completing this reading, I am fully aware of the three most beneficial ways to respond in an argument paper, as well as the importance of analyzing and supporting. I am excited to begin using what I have learned throughout this reading, towards my essay.

Argument Essay

In the E-Text module, titled "Argument Essay", the author clearly illustrates the the primary components that make up an ethical argument paper. It is important to keep an open mind throughout the research process. In order to provide a convincing argument paper, you must become aware of every point of view that topic may have. Research. Not only will this enlighten you with information that you may not have known, but it will help you develop and strengthen your own personal stance on the topic. It is easier to defend your opinion when you know what you are talking about. In other words, it is extremely important to establish a clear and precise position while supporting this particular viewpoint to the utter most. Without support, an argument will not suffice.

After completing my community analysis, I am fully aware of how critical and beneficial the research process can be, especially for Unit 3. With the help of facts, evidence, and statistics, it will make it easier to get my point across and effectively persuade my audience. The more scholarly-based information I use to "back up" my point of view, the more intellectuality i will add to my argument, allowing my attitude on a particular topic to push through to the surface. I am excited to research more about the controversies that my community (online gambling) deals with on a regular basis. If I can unravel my purpose for writing, as well as my purpose for arguing, I will be able to convince my audience of my opinion.

Source:
Fidelie, Laura. "Internet Gambling: Innocent activity or Cybercrime?" International Journal of
Cyber Criminology 3.1 (2009): 476-491. Wev. 14 March 2011.

"Argument Essay"

The Argument section in the E-textbook has opened up different ways to go about researching for a Argument paper. I never saw that there was a pro/con on the CQ-researcher. This will help me find arguments either against or for the tattoo sub-culture. I found more hits on the tattoo sub-culture on the proquest. I will definitely use the editorials to help find some good arguments within the tattoo culture. I found one editorial, “FORMERLY RESERVED FOR SAILORS AND BIKERS, TATTOOS NOW ARE MAINSTREAM; [FIVE STAR LIFT Edition]”(Tracey). I liked this because it talks about the change in the tattoo scene from rebellion to mainstream. There is a lot of debate in this question so it will be very useful in the unit-3 paper.


Tracey Bruce Special To The Post-Dispatch. "FORMERLY RESERVED FOR SAILORS AND BIKERS, TATTOOS NOW ARE MAINSTREAM :[FIVE STAR LIFT Edition]. " St. Louis Post - Dispatch 7 Aug. 2000,ProQuest Central, ProQuest. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.

Reading Response 4: Argumentative Essay

In my opinion, the e-text on argumentative essay does a very good job in making a point how important facts, evidence and statistics are to prove your argument and solidify your stance. In an argumentative essay it is very important to be able to convince the reader and show reasons why you are right and why others are wrong. Also, it is important to look at different opinions on a topic and its angles of view in order to have a better understanding on the stance before actually arguing about it. These three methods in looking for argumentative source, will be very helpful in unit 3 because it tells how other writers approach or what strategies were used to write an argumentative paper. By using opposing viewpoint search method on the library catalog I was able to find two good books regarding opposing viewpoints on video games which both talks about both sides of the picture on various topics.

Hamilton, Jill. Video Games. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2011. Print.

Willis, Laurie. Video Games. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2010. Print.