Lang. Life of Salma

This image: who was the speaker? What was their exigence? What rhetorical choices did he/she use?

Some have called me a grade-grubber...such people shall remain un-McMahon-named.

I am quite proud of this literary dissection.

I wrote this! (below essay)

I incorporated texts and videos I have consumed, and an interesting argument. I thoroughly explained why Wilde's claim was flawed, as well.

This was one of my first essays, and I feel proud of it! :)

While disobedience is occasionally warranted, Wilde’s claim that disobedience is a virtue is too broad; disobedience in itself is not virtuous, since disobedience causes chaos. Rather, disobedience is only virtuous when it is moral and creates societal progress. 

One such example is the American Civil Rights Movement, which battled against racism. Racism against colored people has been present in American society and government for all of history, and it has resulted in many unjust lynchings, murders, rapes, and enslavements. For example, in the book “Just Mercy,” by Bryan Stevenson, he explains and elaborates on the injustices colored people experience to this day. One story he told was of how a black twelve-year-old boy, decades ago in Alabama, was accused of raping a white female. The evidence that the boy was the rapist was insufficient, but in the racist Southern society, he was still executed in the electric chair. Racism has been the cause of many, if not most, of the injustices that have taken place in America, and it makes society progress negatively. Therefore, in this case, opposition and disobedience is needed to oppose racism due to its immorality. Individuals from seventeenth-century Harriet Tubman to twentieth-century Malcom X have committed disobedience; but since it was against immorality, it is virtuous. 

Although there are some instances where disobedience is virtuous, disobedience is not always virtuous, as Wilde claims. Wilde claims that disobedience creates progress, implying that progress is positive, but Wilde fails to acknowledge negative progress. For instance, cuss words are often used in today’s world, with individuals using them at ages as young as nine. They’re said in workplaces, movies, and shows casually, yet at one point, less than a century ago, they were taboo in America. In the book “Thank You For Arguing,” the author illustrated how his mother, when she was younger, went to the movie theater in the 1940s and watched Gone With The Wind, which said the word “damn.” His mother said, “it was quite scandalous.” Over time, vulgar cuss words became much more common as people became disobedient to societal standards. This is negative progress; vulgarity with people of all ages has resulted in lack of respect for others and lack of care for the power of language. Human beings like children, rather than becoming accustomed to swear words, should use language and their mental capacity beneficially. Contrary to Wilde’s broad statement, disobedience was not virtuous here.  

Assuming progress is always positive is not Wilde’s only incorrect implication; Wilde’s statement also implies that all disobedience is moral, which is false. Murder, for example, is usually legally prohibited, so committing murder is disobediance. Yet, the famous Canadian “Barbie and Ken” couple, who killed and raped multiple young females, including their own family member (“Barbie’s” younger sister), are not virtuous. Neither is Ted Bundy, who killed women who he’d lure into his car. Disobedience can be committed on a larger scale, as well. From the 1900s to this day, in 2022, the country of Israel is not obeying global laws in it’s colonization of Palestinians, where it’s bombing Palestinian buildings and killing citizens, including children. There is a video online of Israeli officers arresting a young boy, and another video of two small Palestinian children crying as they hear the sound of an aircraft over their house, fearing it’s Israelis going to bomb them. Wilde’s broad statement entails that all these events, because they’re disobedience, are virtuous. Murder is not virtuous. However, Wilde’s broad, unrestricted statement claims the opposite. Wilde’s error is that he failed to establish what type of disobedience is virtuous, and by simply stating, “Disobedience . . . is man’s original virtue,” he was negligent. Wilde’s statement is, in all, only true if the disobedience is towards immorality. Otherwise, disobedience can be the cause of a society’s downfall, and a declining society will only spawn more disobedience and negative progress.

Hey you! Do you want to read an excellent synthesis essay?

YES!!

*waits for laughter*

The discussion that sticks the most with me, the argument that I have never heard before, was when Kristin McMahon remarked on how language is used to de-subject individuals. She used the example of, “she was raped,” versus, “he raped her.” Or, “she got pregnant,” vs, “he impregnated her.” (E)

While I don’t agree with the point made with this argument in all situations (for instance, in the pregnancy scenario, you are at risk of achieving the same effect, just with another subject), I found this use of language to be an interesting observation, since it is true that language can instate certain perceptions within us, implicitly. 

Which is…somewhat scary. 

I feel that the best real-life application of multiple-choice are menus. Oftentimes, you are at risk of choosing the wrong item. 

In AP Lang., regarding multiple-choice, we were taught to go back to the text to try and find the answers (D).

In the real world, when I am looking at a menu, I have to go to myself and determine what I like.

Just yesterday, I had this dilemma. “Salad, or wrap.” Salad is the healthier option, but when have I ever eaten a whole salad? I have a higher rate of consumption with wraps. But, it is nighttime, so will a lighter option be better? 

With multiple-choice, a similar situation occurs. Oftentimes, when I get stuck between two answers, I find that one of the answers makes an assumption. This tricks me because I don’t know if I should interpret that as a definitive, accurate statement or throw that option away, since it’s faulty. 

Similarly, my brain assumes that I will find the salad tasty. Will I, though? 

I PRESENT TO YOU: the first essay of this school year. A synthesis essay. AWFUL. (C)

I don’t need to tell you how bad it was, but just know…no one had ever taught us how to write a synthesis essay. 

We got a ten-point scale.  

In AP Lang., our teacher effectively taught us how to synthesize in a paper. She even explicitly told us that stating common themes in different works is not synthesis. You must “weave” different texts together to support your claim (C).

I imagine this with crocheting (check out my business :)). Making two separate projects and then smashing them together is not…doing anything. Rather, to create a multi-colored project, you must weave the different strings together, navigating the different balls of yarn.

The same applies for synthesis: you must weave. Don't say: "dogs are nice. Cats are nice. Dogs and cats. Household pets are good." Say, "Household pets are typically pleasant: dogs are physically loving, while cats are emotionally satisfying. Household pets provide a range of happiness for their owner."

Interconnect

Interlock

Transfuse 

SYNTHESIZE

…

(B)

Please do not verify that quote.

But truly, when I am arguing (a common occurrence), conceding a point is something that is quite difficult for me. For most of my life, conceding was always the stupidest thing you could do when arguing, to be blunt. 

I even remember in fifth grade, after we had written argumentative papers on the superiority of cats or dogs, our teacher mentioned that some students conceded that the opposing animal was also good, or whatever our tiny brains had come up with. When the teacher mentioned concession (in different words), I was proud of myself, since I had done that in my essay.

She then promptly said that one should not do that in their paper.

Did that philosophy stick in my mind my entire life? Yes.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the best arguments tend to have concessions. Audiences are more willing to be convinced if the speaker has the same belief or idea as them. However, concessions can also be used to sneakily convince people. 

Let me explain that: you like dogs, I prefer cats. I could say, “Dogs are super kind and loving, but cats have…” This is the most common kind of concession. No trickery. 

Then there is another kind, which my brother recently demonstrated when I told him about someone I recently interacted with. Myself and that someone argued about Palestine and Israel, with that someone stating that they believed Israel should exist.

I later asked my brother how to respond to that proposition: that Israel deserves to be a state, even separately from the Palestinian conflict. My brother said, “Say, ‘yes I agree.’ Let’s give them Texas. Or Massachusetts. And give them your home. Specifically your home. And if [that someone] says no, we’ll just bulldoze his home. And if he says we’re oppressing him, say ‘shut up you antisemitic terrorist.’” Smiley face emoji. 

See what he did there? He essentially pretended to concede. He only used that concession to highlight the nonsense of the opposing claim, educating me about argument in the process. 

The very first assignment I had in AP Language and Composition was with a Kanye West photo. 

Yes. You read that write (hehehehe, pun intended). 

My English teacher passed it out and asked us to analyze it. Later, we learned about the rhetorical situation and SOAPS (subject, occasion, audience, purpose, and speaker). (A)

Now, let me do my own version of that first assignment. 

The average audience would dissect this: the subject? A mother and her son. The occasion? Some sort of graduation. The purpose? To record the happiness and pride felt by a mother towards her child. The speaker? Possibly a family member, or a random bystander who was asked, “Could you please take a photo of us?” But the candidness of the photo points toward a family member who was indefinitely taking pictures (hint: look at the profile picture of this blog). 

I have learned that the most interesting aspect of rhetorical analysis is that it is, in itself, slightly deceptive. “Analysis” implies finding answers to questions. In reality, rhetorical analysis requires working with an inherently limited text, which you can only yield so many certain answers from. With this photo, for example, you do not know what happened before or after it. You do not know what sounds were made, what words were spoken. 

You would not know from this image that hours later, that happy mother would be in the Emergency Room with her son, that son, wheeling her in, previously carrying a bag of her vomit.