The only two comments given that suggested improvements were about citations. “MLA citation guidelines: no need to put the name of the author in the parenthetical citation if you have already mentioned the author’s name in the sentence”. If I were to fix this, I would not use the parenthetical after the quote when I’ve already used her name in the sentence. When saying ‘cutting toxic people out of your life’, the comment suggested “I wonder if this should be cited… sort of using Tiffany’s language”, so I would cite this idea.
I really thought that the topic was interesting. Social media is something I am familiar with and am interested in so it was easy to become immersed in the content of the sources. Both sources were also easy to read and understand; they weren’t incredibly dense. I enjoyed deciding my stance on the prompt and coming up with a thesis for it, and overall just enjoyed the topic itself.
One writing skill I think I improved on was TRIACS. Before coming to this class I really didn’t have a structure for my paragraphs; I wrote out what I thought on the topic and that was it for my body graphs. Learning the structure of TRIACS and seeing how much clearer it made my thoughts appear in writing was very beneficial to me, and I think after lots of practice I have gotten the hang of writing them.
While annotating this, I highlighted the last sentence in a different color because I wasn’t sure if it was part of the claim, but looking back on it now I do think it is. I agree with this claim to some extent. The capabilities humans have and will have because of technology frankly scare me. I’m not sure that we have enough “compassionate people”, as Lama puts them, working in these fields or funding these projects, and I’m worried that the things we are able to accomplish because of technology will ultimately ruin or change what it means to be human. I agree with more of what Lama is saying later in the essay, but I do think it is important to raise consciousness on the implications of what this kind of technology could have on humanity.
(Lama 64)
To me, in this quote, Lama is claiming that no matter what people will continue to advance technologically, and rather than stopping them we should learn how to use this technology in an ethical way. I do agree with this claim. I think that even if we tried to stop technological advancements, people would find ways around it and also we can’t improve and grow as a society if we aren’t advancing. I also agree that it is extremely important to use this “new knowledge and power” ethically. I’m worried that people creating new technology, especially technology that can edit and clone human genes, might not have the best morals. I worry that this type of technology can be used in harmful ways and that it is important that the people creating this technology are compassionate and ethical human beings.
(Lama 67)
I absolutely agree with this claim sentence, and I think it applies to more than just our genetic makeup. The way humans are judged based on things they cannot control, such as genes, is so detrimental to society and it deprives us of the love and compassion that we should have for others regardless of their genetics. As Lama said, we are so much more than just our genomes, and to deem someone as more or less worthy of care in society based on something so insignificant is awful. I think of all the physically and mentally disabled people who are deemed unworthy in society because they can’t perform the types of jobs that able-bodied people are able to, which seems to be how society determines your worth. I think it is awful that something you had no control over can determine how you are treated by others and by society as a whole.
(Lama 69)
I agree that more people should be getting involved in the decision-making process of these scientific projects. I do think it is important for the public to become educated that way they are making informed decisions and arguments and aren’t just basing what they say on personal feelings and motives. I don’t think that we as a society should blindly trust the scientists and the people funding these science projects because what may help them get paid more might not be what is actually best for society. Sure, it may be “cool” to edit someone’s genes aesthetically and it might help these scientists and investors make more money, but this would actually do much more harm than good in society.
Summary
In this essay, Lama discusses gene editing and the importance of ethics in this field of biology. He addresses the creation of cloned genes either for medical things, such as limb replacement, or for reproductive purposes, such as two people cloning their genes to create a baby. He also brings up the genetic modification of food, and how this is more ethical than the genetic modification of human genes but it can still not be entirely ethical. The most important thing that Lama discusses in this essay is the ethics behind these scientific creations. He believes that society needs to have some sort of presence in the decision-making process of these kinds of scientific advancements, because if left simply to the scientists and the people funding them, then ethical issues may arise. He also stresses the importance of treating people and viewing people equally, despite any differences in their genes. He says that “All humans have an equal value and an equal potential for goodness”, which reiterates the importance of not treating people differently based on things that they can’t control. He asserts that it is important as humans to continue advancing technologically, but it is also important to remember what it means to be human and to keep our morals in check while making these advancements.
In the age of increasing social technologies, why is it so much harder to form meaningful relationships? The answer may be in the question itself: technology. “The Complexities of Human Love”, is an episode from the podcast How to Build a Happy Life hosted by Arthur Brooks, a Harvard professor, columnist at the Atlantic, and #1 bestselling author. In this episode of his podcast, Brooks discusses dating apps and why they may actually do more harm than good in the formation of relationships. The article “That’s It, You’re Dead to Me” written by author and staff writer at the Atlantic Kaitlyn Tiffany explores the idea of “toxic people” and the internet influencer’s impact on self-care and interpersonal relationships. The way people use technology may actually be hindering their ability to form long-lasting and meaningful relationships with others.
The narrowed-down options that dating apps provide may actually be hindering our chance for romantic relationships. The difference between meeting people online and meeting people in real life is the diversity; in real life you can meet someone who is the complete opposite of you and your interests, while on dating apps you’re matched based on your similarities. As Arthur Brooks explains, “Other research suggests that romantic love can blossom when people explore their differences–something I fear dating apps often discourage.” Even though the algorithms of dating apps work the way they’re meant to, by pairing you with people similar to you, this may not be the best course of action. Meeting someone who is different from you can open up the door for a lot of interesting conversations, and is a way to broaden your horizons. Dating apps provide us with matches similar to ourselves, but that may not be what we truly need.
TRIAC 2: Brooks
Our need for convenience may be sabotaging our relationships. In the age of online shopping, getting the things we want and need has never been easier. This can also apply to finding relationships: dating apps have lessened the burden of trying to find a romantic partner. However, as Omri Gillath argues, “The fact that it’s easy and accessible doesn’t mean that it’s what people need.” We have become much more passive in our daily lives since the boom of social media and online dating because the convenience of not having to go out and look for someone eliminates the burden of needing to go out and speak to new people in order to find a relationship. This limits not only the kinds of relationships we have, but also diminishes our social skills. Technology giving us everything we need at the tap of a screen could be harming our ability to form relationships.
TRIAC 3: Tiffany
Internet “self-help” rhetoric is actually hurting not only yourself, but also the relationships you have with others. Friendships require proper communication with each other, especially when conflicts arise. In this age of social media, however, influencers have been pushing the need to cut “toxic” people out of your life without explanation. People with no authority to do so are spreading a message of “self-care” throughout the internet, and as Kaitlyn Tiffany states, “The message–implied if not always stated outright–is that other people are simply not my problem.” This idea of taking care of yourself by not caring about others is so detrimental to our relationships and friendships with others. Any relationship requires talking out your issues, not cutting someone off the minute they do something to upset you. The selfishness of internet “self-care” is ruining our friendships and relationships.
TRIAC 4: Tiffany
The things you see and hear on the internet should never be taken as absolute fact. One problem of our generation is that we often hear about something through social media and automatically believe that it is true. Also, things are often taken at face-value, without thinking deeper into the meaning of what people are saying. One example of this is the tweet that Lindy Ford posted offering advice to those anxious about people being upset with them with no real evidence. People online took the tweet the wrong way thinking that she was encouraging people to not communicate during conflict, even though as Tiffany remarks, “That wasn’t what she meant. It’s only what she wrote.” When we see broad or vague statements on the internet addressed to “whoever needs to hear this” or so on, usually the poster is referring to a very specific and personal instance that this advice would work for. Just because you may think the advice could apply to a situation you’re in, it should not be taken as an absolute truth. Giving and taking advice on the internet isn’t always harmful, but the conclusions you draw about your situation should be done on your own.
Arthur Brooks suggests that human relationships are like cats but tech is serving us up toasters. The algorithms used in dating apps work by trying to get the highest percentage of matching information between two profiles, and while this may seem like it might create some good matches, human love is much more complex than that. As Arthur Brooks observes, “Tech tends to take complex problems like human love and treat it as if it were a complicated problem of trying to solve a bunch of math. And it just doesn’t work that way.” As humans, the connections we make with others are based on many different factors, and it doesn’t always have to be what we have in common. Humans are complex, and we need people whose personalities complement ours rather than mimic them. No one wants to date themselves, which is why they are trying to find someone on these apps. The “toaster” matches that dating apps offer are not the kinds of complex “cat-like” relationships humans really need.
1. The author quotes the influencer Lindy Ford as posting on her Twitter account, “Here’s your reminder that unless someone explicitly told you with their words they are upset with you, there is no need for you to worry yourself sick. You have no mental or emotional obligation to people who do not communicate with you. No matter how much you love them.” Do you agree with Lindy? Why or why not? Maybe you agree ‘somewhat’ with Lindy. Explore the validity of her claim that a person has ‘no mental or emotional obligation to people who do not communicate with you.’
I think in some ways, I agree with her. The issue I have with what she said is that I think you do have an obligation to communicate with people if you want to continue that relationship with them, otherwise, the relationship will simply end. I do, however, understand the intent of her tweet. I, myself, struggle with overthinking, and always assuming that my friends are angry with me, even when they have never expressed that they were. So I think that what she meant by this tweet was that she also has this issue and she is encouraging other people to work on letting go of this anxiety until somebody actually expresses their discomfort or anger at you. Going back to when she said that “you have no mental or emotional obligation to people who do not communicate with you”, I don’t believe that this claim is valid simply from personal experience. I have had friends in the past that stopped talking to me without telling me why, claiming that “I knew what I did”, even though I had no recollection of doing anything towards them that would warrant them to stop talking to me. I think that a lot of these conflicts and issues with people could have simply been fixed by just communicating our feelings with each other. I think that to say you don’t have obligation to talk it out with people who abused you, or did something really awful to you so much so that you can’t bear to speak to them anymore is a fair claim because the relationship isn’t worth saving at that point regardless of what the other person had to say. So, long story short, I mostly agree with the intent of her tweet, but I think it could have been worded in a much different way.
2. The author Kaitlyn Tiffany opens this article with a personal anecdote–an account of a silly argument her boyfriend and their relatively new roommate were having about some music. In this anecdote, she describes how, it being late at night, the argument was starting to devolve and she was tired of listening to it. So, she said, ‘This conversation is dumb and I don’t want to keep having it.’ This, apparently, was enough for the roommate to declare her as ‘toxic.’
What grounds does a person have in declaring someone as ‘toxic’? In other words, is there a definitive criteria for measuring the toxicity of someone’s behavior? If so, describe that criteria. Has anyone ever called you toxic? Have you named someone else toxic? If so, what were the circumstances? Do you think the roommate in Tiffany’s story had a valid reason for ‘never speaking to her again’? Explore another option the roommate could have taken, IF you think his reaction was overblown. (no word limit but a minimum of 100 words).
While I have seen many tweets and TikTok’s, declaring the “red flags” in a relationship or “what makes someone toxic“, I personally can’t say that I have a criteria for measuring toxicity in people. I may have referred to someone as toxic simply based on other peoples definitions of the word, but especially recently I’ve come to think that the word doesn’t really hold any particular meaning. It has kind of turned into an Internet buzzword that people use to describe anyone they don’t like or anyone who has traits they don’t agree with. I think one sign of toxicity that was mentioned in the article is interesting: “they cross your boundaries, even though your boundaries are non-negotiable“. I feel like this is a very valid reason to get angry with somebody, but I still think it’s important to talk it over with this person, rather than label them as toxic and cut them out of your life. I don’t believe that the roommate in Tiffany’s story was valid in his reason for “never speaking to her again“. I think that Tiffany definitely could have been nicer in her delivery of what she said, but I don’t think it was something that constituted that big of a reaction. The roommate could have expressed his feelings to Tiffany by telling her that by saying their conversation was dumb, he felt belittled, or something of the sort. Basically, I don’t feel that there’s a specific criteria for labeling someone as toxic because people just kind of use the word as they please.
“That’s It. You’re Dead to Me” Summary:
To me, I think that the theme of this article is that the new age of “self-care” that the internet has perpetuated is pretty selfish and doesn’t actually try to help the relationships you have with other people. Much of the article talks about “toxic” people and relationships and how the internet has used this term to convince people that their relationships with friends and family aren’t worth working on if they don’t make them happy. While it is obvious that if someone is constantly making you feel awful, then maybe you should stop being friends with them, the internet has convinced people that the way to stop being friends is to just cut them off without an explanation. This could be somewhat helpful in abusive relationships, but for relationships with some minor or even a major conflict, the first thing you should be doing is communicating your feelings with the other person rather than cutting them out of your life without an explanation. This article shows that “putting yourself first” doesn’t always mean ghosting every person in your life you deem “toxic”. The internet has pushed this phrase into the heads of teenagers and young adults and it has had consequences on the ways they deal with relationship conflicts, and it’s made it much harder to just talk about our feelings when something is bothering us in a relationship.
“That’s It. You’re Dead to Me” Annotations:
(There wasn’t a lot of space for notes in the margins to I apologize for them not looking great or being very long)
