Today we spell How with a "W". Can you say Sensationalize! The WOW factor!
I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all i knew); Theirs names are What and Why and When And How And Where and Who.
- Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
Broken Hearts on Your Door Step - A World Wide Web Day of Darkness
Today we spell How with a "W". Can you say Sensationalize! The WOW factor!
Inspired by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)'s quote, "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all i knew); Theirs names are What and Why and When And How And Where and Who.". The titled responsion is
Writers are told to think for the six honest serving men - who, what, when, where, how and why. It is a good idea to begin a writing project by thinking of an essay subject or story that will be suitable for a storyboard to follow. Most journalists are taught not to look for the Six Ws, who, what, when, where, how and why, but to look first for "W", "Wher", "Where", "When"Why". However, that is close enough for most journalism, but that is also close enough to make an honest serving man out of any story.
From The Book of The Elephant, by Rudyard Kipling. (The original version was published in 1890; the revised edition in 1908) (Kipling's wife, Elsi, claimed that this poem referred to Elie Wiesel, who was then calling Anette Freud, while, at the same time, she said that it referred to her daughter, Ester) The poem begins:
'The Servant had an eagle eye, an elephant trunk and a horse's hoof.' From the Book of The Elephant, by Rudyard Kiplings. (I can find no evidence that this is the actual version of this poem; this is merely an example of the type of storyboard we use today) From the Book of The Elephant, by Rudyard Kiplings.
And Freedom is Selective Hearing
Inspired by George Orwell (1903-1950)'s quote, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.". The titled responsion is
Rights and restrictions are tangentially functional to a healthy society. We may disagree on the point at which restrictions should limit the sphere of personal freedoms, but we can all agree that personal dignity for fellow human beings is categorically Kantian in origin. Imagine extending this to the biodiversity that sustains all of life, this is real progress.
Rarely extreme women's activists and men's privileges activists share a lot of practically speaking. However, on account of the National Union of Student's No Platform strategy, women's activist Julie Bindel and male supremacist Milo Yiannopoulos can both offer in the experience of being barred from college talking corridors because what they need to state is hostile. In the no so distant past colleges were related with unbridled free discourse. Understudies used to savor any chance to stun and outrage. Presently they are more connected with endeavors to limit the freedom of articulation having a place with 'bothersome' speakers.
Colleges are not by any means the only places where individuals are attempting to prevent others from making statements they would prefer not to hear. As of late the traditional press has been hesitant to offer introduction to individuals with capricious assessments (for example environmental change deniers, creationists, Islamist radicals and racial oppressors). While such outlooks might be profoundly horrendous, mutilated or essentially off-base, that their holders are confined from voicing them adds up to a huge abbreviation of free discourse.
Indeed, even at an individual level, individuals are progressively shielded from neglected sentiments by the state. Simply think about the man captured by the police in London for investigating a Muslim lady about the Brussels assaults. Unquestionably this episode could be depicted as Islamophobic, yet for what reason is the declaration of Islamophobic, supremacist or chauvinist conclusions censured? – on the grounds that they are sees undesirable by their beneficiaries. We are seeing the formation of a general public which can no longer endure others holding the freedom to disclose to it things it wishes not to hear.
Worryingly many can't perceive any reason why this is an issue. All things considered, the greater part of us don't acknowledge hostile or undesirable perspectives when they are communicated to us – we stroll on outraged with our sentiments unaltered. Clearly it would be better on the off chance that we weren't presented to these perspectives in any case? This disposition has the prompt impact of making freedom relative. In the event that a few perspectives must not be heard, at that point, except if we need no feelings to be communicated by any means, it must be chosen which sentiments are satisfactory. Yet, who is to settle on these choices? Would it be a good idea for it to be the state, gambling an administration ready to quietness its faultfinders? Or then again maybe understudies, a classification not famous for their consistency or control. Attempting really to recognize such an authority is unmistakably absurd – obviously we don't need anyone to mention to us what we are permitted to state. Yet, in the event that we acknowledge that we can be determined what not to state, someone some place must have this force, and we would should be clear what it's identity is, and by what authority they choose.
The issue is that what exists presently is a scope of various media and informal organization groupings which turn freely to respond against proclamations they despise, frequently through web-based media. This doesn't eliminate the quick freedom of free discourse from their casualties, for the kickback comes after the remarks have been made. However, it restricts the capacity for such remarks actually to be made again – adding up to a limitation of everybody's capacity to make statements others wish not to hear. The (over)reaction to specific remarks prompts an overall narrowing of perspectives communicated. Henceforth we see numerous women's activists driven off twitter by the awful maltreatment they get for communicating sees others wish not to hear – limiting their capacity to communicate over the long haul. This freedom isn't detracted from them by any position. Rather their free discourse appears to have been detracted from them by society when all is said in done.
This is exceptionally biased. On the off chance that radicalism is to mean anything at all it should mean the option to seek after one's own course inside the limits of the law without impedance from others. This permits us to augment our own bliss without making unsuitable damage others. As free discourse is ostensibly secured by the law, that society can limit it as it picks is definitely a penetrate of freedom. In the event that you hold no offbeat perspectives, this probably won't be excessively irksome to you. In any case, you ought to be worried as free discourse is the methods by which we safeguard our different freedoms. How might we look to ensure our privileges against a state furnished with officers and cops by some other means than utilizing our voices?
As society progressively turns out to be more OK with the possibility that horrendous perspectives shouldn't be heard then there is a peril that the scope of adequate feelings step by step begins to tight as each issue with a supposition is accepted and we become perpetually excited to participate in the regularly pleasant experience of assaulting individuals for doing things we don't care for. In the event that this occurs, at that point the freedom which remains among us and conceivably losing all different freedoms will bit by bit be disintegrated.
Moreover free discourse is the correct which permits us to push for the formation of new freedoms. Many would see gay rights as one of the key freedoms of our age. However this freedom was won by voicing disagreeable perspectives: 100 years back articulations of compassion toward homosexuality were treated with a similar kind of repugnance that racial oppressors experience today. By padding ourselves from undesirable perspectives we are conceivably denying people in the future freedoms that presently we can't envision. As all inclusive testimonial was once something which not many could imagine, almost certainly, future advancements will assist with making a more pleasant and more fair society. Consequently the option to mention to individuals what they would prefer not to hear is of the best significance, supporting the freedoms we at present have and the freedoms we still can't seem to pick up. Its misfortune at our own hands would be catastrophic, presenting us to a close-minded present and a much more close-minded future. Subsequently on the off chance that we wish to live in a less hostile society, we should battle for the option to be hostile to other people.
How do you treat this disorder?
Inspired by Bill Maher (Comedian)'s quote, "I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder." The titled responsion is
Bill Maher, a comedian and television host, has been speaking out on many issues that are often discussed by politicians and journalists alike. Recently he went on Fox News to comment on the political situation in Egypt. He claims that many Americans have lost their ability to reason in this instance. Bill Maher claims that the lack of wisdom of most Americans is what allows the United States to be such a great country; we believe this lack of reason means that we are actually more in agreement with our enemies than we believe with our fellow citizens. He went on to claim that religion is a neurological disease that is allowing people to kill each other for no good reason. His comments are rather disturbing.
Bill Maher goes on to say that if President Obama had known about the growing violence that is occurring in Egypt, he would not have issued an executive order that allowed a flying plane to fly over the area. This type of action could have led to a major incident between the military and the civilian populace, which would not be good for the American People. Bill Maher claims that this type of action shows that the United States government and its leaders are incapable of governing themselves. He goes on to say that religion is a neurological disorder and therefore he believes that any type of religion is bad. He goes on to say that if America was ruled by this theory; we would not have a lot of left-wing groups in the United States because they would simply become violent.
Bill Maher also goes on to say that President Obama's actions in Libya show that he is just a weak man and unable to govern himself. He goes on to say that we cannot trust him. It is unfortunate that we need to take someone like him seriously when he has failed so miserably when dealing with matters of peace and security in the Middle East and the rest of the world. It should be a wakeup call for all Americans that the United States government has become so weak that it allows people to say whatever they want in terms of religious views and political views.