Educating Parents: Violent Video Game Trailers Must Be Improved

The 21st century. The age of technology, and more specifically, the age of video games. Today, the video game industry dominates almost all others across the globe, as video game sales continue to rise. However, this rise in popularity has brought along with it a great deal of concerns regarding the violent nature of many of today’s most popular video games like Grand Theft Auto V and Call of Duty. While people of all ages are known to play video games, minors constitute a major portion of video game consumers today, and parents are clearly concerned as a result. Why? Well, maybe because some parents feel that their children should not be spending their free time beating up prostitutes and robbing convenience stores in the virtual world. Or, maybe some parents feel as if their young ones shouldn’t be in their rooms all day chainsawing people’s heads off. Parents these days, am I right?

The basis for most of the parental concern about violent video games is built upon the connection that has been drawn between the violent content of today’s most popular games and negative changes in the behavior of young gamers, such as increases in aggression. It is now widely believed that violent video games “desensitize” children who are too immature to process that kind of graphic content. While there are still some naysayers on this matter, the larger part of the debate lies in how we, as a society, should  go about fixing this problem regarding violent video games and our youth, a problem that, if not resolved soon, could prove to be rather damaging for future generations, as young gamers everywhere are becoming apathetic and aggressive.

Efforts to shield young ones from violent video games have already been made, as this problem has existed for quite some time now. Unfortunately, putting small symbols at the bottom of these violent video games has done little to deter parents from buying adult-rated games for their children, and has done even less to discourage minors from playing these games. Surprised? I’m not. I mean, a good deal of young gamers don’t know how to accurately interpret the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings on the games that they play, so I don’t know how anybody expects my 47-year-old, Atari playing father to make sense of those small black and white boxes.

Recognizing the flaws that exist with the ESRB rating system, Travis Freese argues in an online article, titled “Solving the ‘Violent Video Game’ Problem: Parent Censorship,” that the most effective solution to the violent video game problem is to educate parents about the games that they are thinking about purchasing for their children. In his piece, Freese posits, “It all comes down to parent knowledge… If you know how violent or inappropriate a video game is before you buy it, then you can assess on an individual basis your child’s maturity, and see if the game is an appropriate match.” ESRB ratings simply do not do enough in regards to giving parents a clear indication of the content of video games today, which ultimately leads to parents buying adult-rated games for their young ones, exposing minors to violent, damaging content. So, as Freese suggests, a new method of education must be implemented in order for parents to be able to assess whether a given game is too violent for their children. What is this new method of education? Trailers.

In his piece, Freese maintains that an important resource for parents trying to shield their children from the violent content of video games today is game trailers. These short clips, usually only  a couple minutes in length, offer up a short preview of some of the game’s features. By watching these clips and actively trying to educate themselves about the violent content of the video games their children want to play, Freese argues that parents can learn a lot about today’s most popular games, doing a great deal to resolve the issue with violent video games. Problem solved, right? Wrong.

The suggestions made by Freese are largely based on his assumption that all video game trailers accurately depict the content of the games that they are advertising, when in reality, they do not. If a parent wanting to know if the newest Grand Theft Auto (GTA) game is too violent for their child or not watched the trailer for the game and saw police shootouts, strip clubs, and brutal mass murders, then perhaps Freese’s proposal would be fine as is. However, this is just simply not the case. Instead, a parent inquiring about such a game today would most likely see various camera angles of the game’s layout and maybe a couple of glimpses at the virtual characters available for use in the game. What did you expect? After all, trailers are created to advertise games, not to educate parents.

With this said, while I agree with Freese that educating parents is the best way to solve the violent video game problem, I posit that in order for this solution to be truly effective, a new kind of trailer must be created. In this new trailer, the most extreme and graphic parts of games will be emphasized so that parents can develop a more accurate understanding of the violence contained in these games. One possible example of this is a parody trailer for GTA V created by SmoshGames, in which the game’s most violent parts are brought to center stage. Despite the fact that the video was created for comedic purposes, SmoshGames’ video still serves as a great template for what game trailers should show if we ever want to solve the violent video game problem.

It is clear that there is still a lot to do before this problem is resolved, but strides must be made soon in order to protect future generations from irreversible physiological damage. If not, parents you may want to steer clear of your child because they’re probably a violent psychopath.

 

 

Why do we allow campaigns to get away with false advertisement in referendums?

When it comes to buying a product, you wouldn’t be satisfied if after buying it you found out it doesn’t live up to what it was advertised to be. So, why is it that when it comes to voting in a referendum, campaign parties are allowed to lie about their policies and not reveal this until after the results have been announced?

The year of 2016 was full of surprises, but one of the most shocking occurrences was the decision that the public of Great Britain made to leave the European Union. On June 24th, Great Britain held a referendum, presenting the question of whether or not the country should remain as a member of the European Union. After the surprise result was revealed the following day, many people took to the internet, furious about the results of the decision and within days a petition for a revote had accumulated over four million signatures. However, whilst this is an enormous number, far surpassing the 100,000 signatures required for a petition to be considered for a debate in parliament, it is extremely unlikely that there will actually be a second referendum.

There is an immense number of people requesting a second referendum not only because they didn’t get the result they want but because it has come to surface since the referendum that the main policies made by the leave party will not be kept, and this has caused many of the people who voted to remain to change their mind. In fact, polls have shown that there may now be a majority in favor of remaining in the EU. The main policies made were that the party would donate 350 million pounds to the NHS (National Health Service) per week and that there would be better control of migration from the EU and at the same time, there would be full access to the single market. It has now come out that the NHS will not be receiving 350 million pounds per week and that we will not be able to negotiate control of migration from the EU and at the same time have full access to the single market. Astonishingly, the leave campaign did not commit any kind of offense by advertising these false statements; despite the fact that had this happened in an election it would have been an electoral offense and there would have been consequences for the candidate.

Theresa May- the appointed prime minister after the resignation of David Cameron following the referendum- made it clear in her speech that Great Britain would be leaving the EU. She argues for the legitimacy of the referendum, but numerous other articles disagree with this, one even questions whether or not making false statements in referendum campaigns should be an electoral offense. In this post, Doherty lists arguments both for and against the notion; his main argument against revolving around freedom of speech. His point is valid, but why should this be the case for a referendum when it’s not for any other type of advertisement (even within the world of politics)?

On the list of electoral offenses in the UK, under the category of false statements, it says that it is in fact an illegal practice to publish false facts about a candidate. This should absolutely be the same case for parties in a referendum. Voting for a candidate is no different to voting for a campaign in a referendum; however, the list of electoral offenses does not reflect this.

Furthermore, in marketing and advertising, there’s a law against misleading consumers, this law even says that this includes false or deceptive messages. So why should politicians selling their parties policies to the voters be different from a company selling their products to consumers? 17,410,742 people voted to leave and then found out that they would not get what they voted for. If 17,410,742 people bought a product from a company and didn’t get what they paid for, then the company would have a serious issue- and this should be the case for the leave party too.

In Doherty’s article, he also uses an article by Adam Wagner to look at a specific argument to support the actions made by the leave campaign. Doherty draws upon Wagner’s statement that the campaign didn’t completely lie, just exaggerated the actions they would take. However, if we treat the campaign leaders as businesses, even this exaggeration would be problematic due to the fact that it is against the law for them to advertise with deceptive messages, and an exaggeration would come under the category of deception.

In conclusion, politician’s should not be allowed to get away with advertising false information to the public in referendums when the voters have to use this information to make decisions that will have huge consequences that effect the lives of everyone. These campaign laws should be treated just like marketing and advertising when it comes to businesses selling products to consumers., or like candidates in an election. If it is an electoral offense to publish false facts about a candidate there’s no reason not to extend this offense to cover campaign parties too.

Elevation but not Escalation: the Debate on Honor Code Penalties

Disclaimer: the below is a never-before-seen communication from the reclusive Princeton Honor Code.  Is it a person? A computer? A magical, omnipotent entity?  Probably all of the above.  It appears to have emerged from its hermitage to defend its penalties, saying that they should not be lessened, but perhaps altered to include rehabilitative measures.  Please, reader, enjoy.  And don’t cheat.

Dear Princeton Student,

I’m the Honor Code.  You met me briefly in your prefrosh summer with some mandatory assignments.  We were introduced at an orientation session.  And since then, I have had ultimate authority over your academic career.

I’m designed to be fair.  You cheat?  You get punished.  If you’re found in violation, you’ll probably get one year of academic suspension.

Hold up.  You think that’s a lot?  So did Justin Ziegler ’17 and his friends.  Last year, they proposed a referendum.  One of the main points was changing the penalties to be fairer.  They suggested finer gradations of punishment, rather than the standard of one year suspension and the other options of probation, two year suspension, and expulsion.

Many students agreed.  They thought that creating this penalty scale and lessening the punishments would make the system fairer.  But…

And here’s why:

• Creating a scale of penalties would actually create injustice among the penalties dealt out by the Honor Committee.  After all, we cannot truly declare that some cheating is better cheating than the other cheating.  That is to say, what makes doctoring a regrade worse than bringing a calculator?  Members of the Honor Committee would have to make these nuanced, subjective decisions, which in the end is actually unfair to students because their punishment could be biased.
• Lessening the penalties could potentially devastate the community standards of Princeton academics.  The Honor Code does create a strong sense of responsibility and community in Princeton, so to lower integrity standards could only harm an institution with a reputation for spotless academics.
• Lessening the penalties would encourage more cheating.  One of the incentives for students not to cheat right now is the severity of the penalties – students know that the punishment is not worth it if they are caught.  A more lenient penalty creates more room

These points, and more, are made by Samuel Parsons ’19 in his opinion piece about the referendum:

“There is no grey line between honesty and falsehood. You put your pen down, or you don’t. You cite the source of the idea, or you don’t. You keep your eyes on your own paper, or you don’t. Creating increments of punishment with lesser penalties convolutes our understanding of right and wrong and of academic integrity. It tells us that some cases of cheating are more acceptable than others, when there is no circumstance where cheating is acceptable at all… The expectation is polar, and it is on the side of honesty.”

Parsons is exactly right.  The penalties of our system are harsh and black and white because cheating is harsh and black and white.  Every Princeton student is proud to come here – and why is that?  Because our school has a reputation for the kind of academic spotlessness that is simply not possible if students are just allowed to cheat.

There can be no lessening of the penalties.  There can be no finer gradient.  But there can be change.  I am not inflexible, after all.  Another of Ziegler et.al.’s suggestions is to make the punishments more rehabilitative – and this is a valid point.  Students who are found in violation should be given the chance to learn and grow.  Ziegler et.al. suggested an educational course on academic integrity as a substitute for a penalty, but I suggest it as an addition to our existing penalties.

I believe that the best possible solution is to add a course teaching and reteaching the rules and guidelines of academic integrity.  This course would be mandatory for all students who receive a penalty less than expulsion; they would have to participate and finish before returning to Princeton.

This addition would allow returning students to acclimatize back into the rigorous Princeton community and teach them about better study habits in hopes of preventing further cheating.  It would truly allow students to come full circle and improve themselves.

Perhaps you ask, dear student, why you should care.  I don’t know if you saw when I mentioned it before, but as the Honor Code, I have a lot of influence over your life at Princeton.  Hopefully you say you would never cheat – but nonetheless, I am an important part of your community.  It is not only in your best interests, but also your duty to ensure that I treat you and your fellow students fairly and deservingly.

So please, reader, do your part to ensure that just and beneficial changes are made.  Participate in improving the Princeton community to its utmost potential.  And above all, don’t cheat.

Sincerely,

The Princeton Honor Code

YES, Business Schools Are Incubating Criminals; Better Ethics Education Will Solve That

 

Former Enron CEO and Harvard Business School graduate Jeffrey Skilling testifying on Capitol Hill for the Enron accounting fraud case on February 26, 2002. Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in prison, but his sentence was reduced by a decade in 2013. (AP Photo/Kenneth Lambert, File)

In 2001, American energy and commodities company Enron went bankrupt after years of using accounting fraud to hide losses and boost profits. In 2008, Lehman Brothers was one of the several financial services firms that went bankrupt as a result of using risky business practices and accounting tricks to manipulate earnings and hide debt. Today, international banking and financial services giant Wells Fargo is on trial for having created millions of fake bank and credit card accounts where it charged its clients annual fees and interest charges to boost sales figures and profits.

These are just some of the many business scandals that have taken place in the past decades. What do they all have in common? These companies’ CEOs all hold MBA degrees.

So what does this mean? Well, it simply means that business schools don’t know how to teach their students right from wrong. This major shortcoming keeps these institutions from achieving one of their main goals: stimulating the emergence of responsible behavior that helps the improvement of society. While in principle, business is supposed to be a force for good, creating new goods, services, and jobs that contribute to economic growth and higher living standards; in practice, businesses and corporations are more commonly associated with corruption than with creation of social wealth. Certainly, a lot of the blame for this pervasiveness of wrongdoing should be on education.

Luigi Zingales, a professor at University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, wrote an op-ed article in 2012 titled, “Do Business Schools Incubate Criminals?” In it, he criticizes the current system of business ethics education for its ineffective ethics instruction. According to Zingales, “The way to teach these ethics is not to set up a separate class in which a typically low-ranking professor preaches to students who would rather be somewhere else. This approach […] serves only to perpetuate the idea that ethics are only for those students who aren’t smart enough to avoid getting caught.” Zingales emphasizes how one of the biggest problems with the current system is that this “low-ranking professor” presents ethical dilemmas without ever taking a position on how students should act. Consequently, the author affirms, the unqualified professor ends up encouraging students to display amoral behavior and avoid their social responsibilities.

The solution Zingales offers to the ineffectiveness of contemporary business ethics instruction is the following:

“Ethics should become an integral part of the so-called core classes […] that tend to be taught by the most respected professors. These teachers should make their students aware of the reputational (and often legal) costs of violating ethical norms in real business settings, as well as the broader social downsides of acting solely in one’s individual best interest.”

The catalyst of change in this new business ethics instruction model, Zingales asserts, is the higher-level professor. According to Zingales, this professor would make sure students are aware of the consequences of “violating ethical norms” and “acting solely in one’s individual best interest.” Furthermore, high-level professors would constantly guide their students towards the best possible courses of action in real-life situations, thus actually taking a position in ethical dilemmas. Zingales implies that these tools—not currently provided by “low-ranking professors”—would result in students acquiring the skills they need to effectively incorporate ethical analysis into their evaluation of the possible courses of action in a business situation.

Zingales is right in his assertion about the ineffectiveness of the current system of business ethics instruction, but there would be a major unintended side effect from his proposed solution. Were ethics simply integrated into other courses, students would not learn the fundamental principles of ethics or reflect on the different ethical ideologies that govern them. Without this background, students would not actually learn about business ethics, but would instead constantly get involved in cost-benefit analyses that merely take into account the legal and reputational costs of different business decisions. As opposed to what Zingales suggests, his proposal would not give students the tools they need to effectively incorporate ethical analysis into their decision-making processes. After all, there is nothing students would be able to base their ethical analyses on.

An effective way to address business schools’ present-day “incubation of criminals” would be to include ethics as a core part not just of other core courses, but also of the entire business program curriculum. This would mean business ethics being taught as a required course and then being integrated into other courses. In the core business ethics course, students would be instructed on the fundamentals of business ethics and taught to reflect on the fundamental ethical principles that govern them. After students acquire this comprehensive foundation, professors in other core courses would teach them how to use the different spheres of ethical criteria when analyzing real-life business situations. Ethics’ increasingly central role in business education would solve the flaw Zingales points out about the “low-ranked professor” and the mediocre students—students would start taking ethics more seriously, and highly qualified professors would be both teaching ethics in their respective courses and even feel attracted to the idea of teaching the core business ethics course. As a whole, the program would more adequately prepare students to deal with ethical issues in the corporate world, and hence help business schools’ efforts to fulfill their social responsibility of stimulating the emergence of responsible behavior in the business world.

Ineffective ethics education is not the only reason why ethical transgressions are so pervasive in today’s corporate world; the fault also lies on inefficient regulations and the result-based culture that exists in most businesses today. However, just like business schools teach their students about managing cash flows and dealing with customers, they should also teach students to use their skills for the betterment of society instead of solely acting in their individual best interest. The plan proposed above helps achieve this purpose. Whether change takes place in the following years, however, remains to be seen.

 

Replacement of NCAA the Best Hope at Restoring Societal Values

Before Cardale Jones became famous on the collegiate football spectrum for his legendary national championship run as the quarterback of the Ohio State Buckeyes in 2015, he was making headlines for his questionable tweets such as this one. But to Jones’s credit, I guess he’s got a point, I haven’t played school since I was in Kindergarten and I certainly didn’t come to college for that reason.

Although, these remarks may seem comical, they highlight some of the major issues of big time college sports (NCAA division 1 football and men’s basketball). With the commercialism of these sports, societal values seem to emphasize sports over academics, which is creating a real problem for these young men when they come out of college as they lack the necessary education to succeed in a life after football or basketball. Just one look at where Johnny Manziel‘s life has gone and you’ll see my point.

At least Ohio State seems to be better off than most as they are making their players actually attend class. The same can’t be said for all schools, such as at the University of North Carolina which has been under extreme fire due to the academic scandals involved with their men’s basketball and football teams. At UNC athletes have been given fraudulent grades without even showing up to class. So yes Cardale, it seems like the faculty at some schools actually agree with you!

The question now becomes what to do about it?

Many believe that the way to resolve these issues is by having the faculty members take a greater stand against the athletic administrations, but as we can see the faculty is a large part of the problem. Therefore, maybe the solution lies within the lack of oversight, and punishment by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

For a long time, the NCAA has been scrutinized for allowing this shift in moral values to occur due to the commercialism of college sports. This is why many argue that reforming the NCAA to instill stricter guidelines and oversight regulations may help at re-emphasizing the educational experience of college over the athletic one.

One major advocator for NCAA reform is Allen Sack, a member of the Drake Group, who believes that it’s time to take a stronger stand against the NCAA. Sack suggests that it is time to take a more aggressive approach since trying to work with the organization hasn’t resulted in any actual change when it comes to the improper values of academics and athletics at these universities. In his book, Counterfeit Amateurs, Sack points this out when comparing his reform group to a contemporary one known as the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA): “Perhaps the major issue separating the Drake Group and COIA concerning tactics is that the COIA believes the NCAA will embrace its proposals merely because they sound reasonable. Drake Group members believe that serious reform will require substantial outside pressure from the federal government or the courts.” Sack believes that the pampering that has been done to go along with the NCAA just isn’t working and it’s time that further action take place in the form of outside pressure from federal courts.

But, is this enough. Is it even possible to reform an organization such as the NCAA to shift these values? Unfortunately, I don’t think it is as the NCAA has proven to be a highly disorganized and even dysfunctional organization. That is why the replacement of the NCAA with a new organization may be the only way to ensure that actual change occurs and students and faculty once again acknowledge the fact that they are there to learn first and play sports second.

Two proponents of replacing the NCAA are Donna Lopiano and Gerald Gurney. In their article, “Don’t reform the NCAA- Replace it,” Gurney and Lopiano explain the corruption of the NCAA and exactly why replacement is necessary: “The NCAA membership has established a plutocracy in which a minority of the wealthiest institutions controls a constant escalation of wasteful spending and extravagance.  In 1997, the membership ceded control of the NCAA to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), a 121-member subset of a 1,061-active-member association, caving in to the threat that FBS institutions might leave. This strategy was repeated in 2014, by the 65 most wealthy institutions known as the Big 5 Conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference , the Big 12 Conference, the Big 10 Conference and Pac-12 Conference), who so far have been successful in demanding more  autonomy and control.” Gurney and Lopiano point out that at this point the NCAA has lost control of itself as the “Big 5 Conferences” seemingly control the organization. With this in mind it is inconceivable to expect the organization to reform itself when it is controlled by the athletic conferences that only reinforce the importance of athletics over academics. This is why I agree with Lopiano and Gurney in their argument for the replacement of the NCAA as no

In today’s society where we are surrounded by college sports, it’s hard for many to even imagine the student aspect of these athletes lives. Perhaps part of the reason is because it ceases to exist due to the cultural values of these athletes and even faculty members. The NCAA in large part is to blame for their lack of oversight and by allowing commercialism of these sports to occur at such a large degree, which led to these flawed societal values. Although, the outlook may look bleak for restoring academic values in big time college sports, the best option would be to replace the NCAA.

We need media in climate change

While melting ice caps and rising water levels might not be a serious issue to some, climate change is no joke. It is hard to ignore the growing global climate crisis because not only does the situation threaten our current way of life, but has a significant impact on the future. Discussions and debates on the topic have erupted within society, but in order for these conversations to result in any valuable contributions to the fight against the changing climate, the participants must be properly educated. Since education holds such great importance, another debate within the larger discussion has emerged – what exactly is the best way to educate society on the climate change problem?

The short answer is media because media has the ability to reach a vast population and grab their attention. However, that viewpoint is not shared across society. According to Andrei Marin and Fikret Berkes, local accounts are a more reliable education tool in climate change as opposed to other forms of media like magazine articles or television advertisements. They feel that the media possesses several pressing problems: “…media accounts are often general and locally irrelevant, in contrast with the detailed local anchoring of the knowledge often held by people who rely on natural resources for their livelihoods.” They argue that media overall is inaccurate, ineffective, and only causes more harm when it comes to climate change education. They are insistent on the use of local accounts to educate. However, Marin and Berkes solely focus on examples of poorly executed media, and fail to account for the recent advancements in media techniques that have made it a valuable tool for education.

Marin and Berkes’ argument focuses mainly on the idea that media platforms are inaccurate and unable to present all the scientific information that is necessary for proper education. However, this is not the case because many media platforms combine empirical evidence into their visuals.(Screenshot from South African PSA that uses animations of dark clouds to show viewers that their homes are contributing to the changing climate)

The public service announcement (PSA) produced by South Africa’s environment ministry demonstrates to viewers how the emissions from their cars contribute to climate change. This information is scientifically backed and presented in a much more efficient way than other methods, like local accounts. Advertisements like this one embed this information into powerful visuals, like animations, so the viewer can comprehend all of the complex problems regarding climate change. In summary the notion that media is inaccurate is outdated, as it is evident that many media tools successfully incorporate empirical data into their visuals.

As I stated before, media is the most effective form of education partly because of its attractiveness. Advertisements and magazine articles have the distinct ability to strike the viewer emotionally. Through the use of powerful imagery, advertisements have the ability to access viewers’ emotions and threaten their sense of security.

(Ad by the World Wildlife Fund that shows a man-fish hybrid as a result of climate change)

The Greenpeace video, A Homeless Polar Bear in London, depicts a polar bear roaming a city landscape desperately looking for its natural habitat. This idea of death, destruction, and depression spark a compelling need to take action. The strongest type of media is when it appeals to the viewer’s emotions, and since climate change has a strong hold over human emotions, it proves very valuable to the fight.

The applications of media reach far more than just climate change education. Education through media can be applied to political, economic, and other environmental issues. If media platforms were used in other issues, like the Y2K event, more people would have had a stronger grasp on the concept and possible outcomes. The situation could have been diffused rather than blown out of proportion. However, with climate change we have an opportunity to change our ways and take a stand against the problem with the help of educational media. Climate change media can easily and successfully educate a vast amount of people, and give them incentive to take action by attacking their emotions. Only once media is implemented into climate change education can the true problem of how to solve the climate problem can be tackled. Now since education is the first step in solving any problem, identifying the best way to educate is immensely important for any issue. While media is the center of this climate change debate, the idea of education is important for issues throughout society.

 

I pledge my honor that this paper represents my own work in accordance with the University regulations. Signed, Davey Roberts

 

A Misconception of Oversensitivity: How PC Culture and the Internet Ruined Trigger Warnings

If you’ve seen the news, checked twitter, or talked to anybody recently, you’ll know that one of the biggest controversies of 2016 was the rise in political correctness (PC). Some even believe that the movement helped trump gain the presidency. Whether or not you consider yourself a social justice warrior, the PC culture has been in the news, with critics arguing that it stifles the conversation and coddles the students on college campuses. In the heart of this debate was the issue of trigger warnings, specifically those seen on the syllabi in higher education classrooms.

The concept of a trigger warning developed from the term “trauma trigger,” which originated in the mid-to-late 20^th century in connection with the treatment of war veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, particularly after Vietnam. It was first adopted in the beginning of articles in the blogging world.

It was set up in a similar way to the tags “NSFW” (Not Safe For Work), and “Spoiler Alert!” to warn readers that the following material may be something that they don’t want to read. For example, an article that describes a rape scene may trigger a reader who has survived a sexual assault, and the warning will allow the potential reader to decide whether or not they feel they can read it.

So what possibly could’ve went wrong? Why are people so quick to scrutinize trigger warnings, and why do people associate the term with the millennial generation being thin-skinned?

Things went south when the triggers became more loosely defined, and anything that could be considered offensive in a post was preceded by the words “Trigger Warning.” The nature of the phrase has evolved online, and has ended up the butt end of some pop culture humor. Throughout platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit, people have taken the idea that you can be “triggered” by anything and made a complete joke of the word itself. An example is the story of Melody Hensley, a feminist who self-diagnosed herself with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after being harassed online. Hensley managed to convince her doctor that her PTSD from mean tweets was “on par” with that incurred by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, which obviously didn’t bode well among the trolls.

Because she used the word “triggered” when referring to how things affected her, and because she spoke out against veterans, the Twitter community turned against her (a common ocurrance, because the anonymous people of the internet can be absolutely ruthless.) Whenever anything that might’ve seemed politically incorrect was posted, a satirical image of her with the word “triggered” was often replied. Hensley became a meme, an amusing item (in this case an image) spread throughout social media. As the meme grew in popularity, the applications became more and more sarcastic, and the word itself became watered down.

Triggers have also entered the news with universities speaking out on their own policies regarding them. The University of Chicago made waves in the media after sending out a letter stating why they’re against trigger warnings, safe spaces, and cancelling scheduled speakers over controversial topics. The University staff believes that trigger warnings inhibit the students’ learning because there aren’t trigger warnings in the real world, and therefore believe that they hurt the learning process as opposed to helping it.

There is a flaw, however, with the claim that UC makes in this letter. When searching through the article, the words “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” “Trauma,” and “Mental Illness” are not mentioned anywhere throughout the text. When you write a letter justifying why they aren’t necessary, the concept that you’re banning has to first be understood. I disagree with this decision (not in total, but at least for the trigger warnings) because the University is completely ridding itself of something that certain people NEED to be an active part of their respective class. Had they came out and said “We have decided to remove all unnecessary triggers from our class syllabi” the motion may have been more justified, but by coming out an saying there will be none is far too broad of a rule.

People like Melody Hensley made it easy for people to hate political correctness, and made it harder for people to implement trigger warnings that can be taken seriously. There still remains a demographic of people who benefit greatly from these warnings, but undeservedly fall into the category of being hypersensitive by false association to the word trigger. How should this issue be approached on college syllabi to separate what’s actually vital to students’ well being from something that the internet has ran into the ground with dank memes?

A solution that could work can be adopted from the world of public relations and marketing, rebranding. A change to a more fitting name could help people understand the true purpose, and eliminate any unnecessary associations. A better name for a heads up that sensitive material is to follow is a “content advisory,” which isolates the idea from being labeled a “trigger,” the word that has caused so much controversy.

It may not be perfect, and it may not work at all, but it’s better in my opinion than people having to relive scarring life experiences because somebody thought that my generation is too soft. Leave the triggers to the internet trolls, and the content advisories to those who can appropriately use them to learn more effectively.

Nicki Minaj’s Overt Sexuality Isn’t Regressive Feminist, Her Lyrics Are

You know that moment when you’re just jamming out to a with a great beat that’s real catchy and suddenly you stop and listen to the lyrics? And what you hear is:

“Yes I do the cooking
Yes I do the cleaning
Yes I keep the nana real sweet for your eating
Yes you be the boss yes I be respecting
Whatever that you tell me ’cause it’s game you be spitting.”

Wait, WHAT!?

Pop music’s descent into misogynistic content has been a pattern for years, but no other content like rap epitomizes the problem. Nicki Minaj, a sole mega-successful female rapper in a male dominated industry, has succeeded despite the content of her surroundings. However, unwittingly, she has made herself a part of the problem.

Many point to Nicki as a regressive role model for feminism because of her overt sexuality. Infamous music videos like “Anaconda” featuring her twerking butt had women and men all over labeling the video as a porn and equating sexual to sexist because she takes part in the very same processes that male rappers get backlash for: using women’s bodies as props. How can giving Drake a lap dance be anything but demeaning?

The thing is, hyper-sexualized videos like Anaconda, Super Bass, etc. are not problematic. In fact, Anaconda’s cinematography can be analyzed in a way that is rather progressive. When she gives Drake a lap dance, the scene is dominating by Nicki. Drake is seemingly powerless in a chair while Nicki controls her sexuality on her own terms. When he goes to touch her, she bats his hand off and walks away. This means that Nicki decides when and who can touch her body, even if the exchange between her and Drake is completely sexualized (read: consent!). In a later scene, Nicki even takes a banana and cucumber- phallus objects- and destroys them.

 

 

 

 

So, what is the problem???

Her lyrics. The song referenced at the beginning of this blog is from the immensely popular “Hey Mama” (968,253,913 views!)  by David Guetta ft. Nicki. The referenced lyrics are from Nicki’s verse where she equates her purpose in life to “cooking, cleaning” and sexually pleasing her man. It’s obviously problematic as her words solidify a type of stereotypical image women have been fighting to overcome since the beginning of time. This pattern of regressive, sexist lyrics isn’t limited to songs produced by others, but Nicki’s own songs as well. “Stupid Hoe” and other songs are horribly cringe-worthy, especially coming from a rapper like Nicki who, want it or not, has the burden of female representation within rap culture.

Because of this pressure, some have risen to defend her, saying that in order be successful in the rap industry, she HAS to partake in some of these misogynistic processes to not be ostracized. But I find it hard to believe the argument that rap can’t be successful without sexist lyrics. 

Some arguments make a little more sense. Katherine Burks says that the people who listen to the music are part of the problem because by voting with YouTube views or your dollar, derogatory practices become normalized. I agree, to a point. Burks references the “Hey Mama” lyrics as one of these songs where she can’t help but jam too. Only when she stopped and listened to the lyrics, (like many of us), did she realize the problematic lyrics. She questions “How can we reconcile our love for downright sexist music with our unfaltering feminist views?” And provides the answer of “we don’t. Well, scratch that — we can’t. Unless we’re willing to part ways with the small gold mine of songs we’ve been collecting since “Candy Shop” reigned supreme on our iPods.” Rather she says, we have to “think critically about what stereotypes these songs portray” so listeners can identify these misogynistic practices in real life.

But the fact that she reflects on this process, where she even should REALIZE that lyrics are sexist prove the problem can’t realistically be directed to the populace. Recognizing the problem won’t stop the production of music if the sales are still successful. Burks said it herself, we love this sexist music. However, she needs to articulate why we love it. Most of us aren’t inherently listening for women bashing lyrics before appreciating the song! Things that sell nowadays need a catchy beat- it’s a phenomenon that has been true for decades, and more recently, closely tracked with the rise of EDM into mainstream culture. (I mean, who even knows what most of those songs are saying? BonBon by Estrafi was sung in Albanian and it was still top 13 on Billboard.) If a rapper decides to inject the word sex, booty, and bitch a bunch of times, that doesn’t dictate whether the song will be popular. Rather, the beat does. This is proved by the top 2, 3, and 4 songs for 2016 in the US being clean numbers that didn’t reference women in a degrading connotation (“7 Years” by Lukas Graham, “Cheap Thrills” by Sia, and “I took a Pill in Ibiza” by Mike Posner, respectively). So, does Nicki have to talk about “pissing on bitches”, “Hoes so busted, hoes is so crusty these bitches is my sons and I don’t want custody” or “If you sexy, eat my cucka roll”? No. She chooses too, and that’s the problem.

Why is it important for Nicki to be a feminist role model? The rap industry capitalizes on its misogynistic practices. This sends a message to its listeners that it’s ok to treat women as objects to be used and abused. Nicki has been successful in this environment despite this attitude. She has the power to change the perception of what makes “successful” modern rap. Being a woman you can rap about supporting other women (not calling them bitches) and owning your sexuality for yourself, rather than for a male gaze like she does so frequently in her music videos. Nicki is halfway there- she just needs to say what she is showing.  

 

The women’s Olympic hurdle height needs to be higher

josephmdddawp

 

The United States Mass Surveillance is a Necessary Evil

If you didn’t know by now, here it is: you’re being watched. With the increasing power and complexity of technology, it has become evident that it is just about impossible to go untraced or be hidden in today’s society. Your phone works as a tracking device you carry in your pocket, some satellites can read license plates on cars from space, and the government has access to virtually every email, internet search or text message you will ever make.

It’s clear that surveillance has gone far beyond then security camera in the supermarket or convenience store. This is why many believe that the methods of mass surveillance that are now used by first world countries, especially in the United States, are remnant of the principles of “Big Brother” from George Orwell’s book, 1984, a society of total surveillance. Simply being put, you are always being watched, in ways you don’t even realize and are most times totally oblivious too.

But with this extensive surveillance, there has been a great deal of discussion over the pros and cons of it. There have been many claims of suspected invasion of privacy rights, and living in a society that watches us to closely retracts from our ability to live freely. This arises the question many have: is this surveillance is a good thing that benefits American citizens, or does it infringe on our rights as human beings to live truly free lives, without being monitored wherever we go?

Mass surveillance is a necessary evil because it has proven to be essential to ensuring security to society and it’s citizens. Here’s why:

Because the police and government have access to such an unprecedented amount of surveillance, they can solve crimes, and catch criminals easier, and faster. Missing persons are able to be tracked using cell phones that work as GPS’s, cameras are documenting important clues to crimes on tape, whether it be the perpetrators face or a license plate leads directly to the criminal or possible witnesses. The data being collected by surveillance devices are undoubtedly improving the country’s justice system. But more than this, surveillance can stop crime before it occurs because of it as well.

It’s common knowledge how extensive surveillance has become, and because of this it has put a drastic reduction on crime. Studies have shown that crime rates have dropped throughout the years as surveillance has increased in magnitude and effectivity.

This correlation exists because the surveillance being utilized today enables us to exploit the same methods of behavioral control used in the ancient prison, a panopticon. The panopticon was a jail, built in a way that made it appear as if a guard was watching the prisoners at all times. The guard could see into the prisoners cells, but the prisoners couldn’t see into the guards tower to know when the guard was actually there.  And because the prisoners believed they were being watched 24/7, they would behave perfectly. Prisoners would never act out due to risk of being caught.

The Homeland Security News Wire wrote about a study done by the Urban Institute, where this exact trend was proven. New surveillance systems were set up in two communities. In the neighborhood where the surveillance cameras were publicized to citizens, and very noticeable, the crime rate dropped significantly and stayed low over time, but in the other community where surveillance cameras were set up but not publicized, or even very noticeable, the crime rate did not change. Most residents didn’t notice them, and those that did notice, didn’t believe the cameras were even being monitored.

It’s similar to how a person wouldn’t steal something from a store in front of the cashier, or send out an anonymous threat via laptop when they know it can be traced back to their IP address. Out of fear of being caught, the person doesn’t even attempt it, and the crime can be avoided all together.

When it comes down to it, the mass surveillance that the United States is doing, when constitutional, is in fact a very good thing. Because of all the ways it benefits the people, it is a “necessary evil” to ensure the safety of a United States citizens.

The biggest protest against surveillance is that many believe it violates privacy rights of the citizens. An article written by James Ball in The Guardian, “Of Snowden and the NSA, only one has acted unlawfully – and it’s not Snowden” goes into detail about the actions of one particular surveillance scandal involving the National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.S. government.

In this article, the revelations made from Edward Snowden’s disclosures of the NSA documents accounting their surveillance practices were discussed. These being that the surveillance the NSA was doing was unconstitutional, as they were accessing emails, text messages, phone records, internet searches, etc. without the knowledge of the American citizens.

Edward Snowden

Legally speaking this is the only form of mass surveillance that deserves any type of scrutiny, as it is the only form of surveillance that is actually doing harm to the people, by infringing on their rights.

However, people that believe that a society of total surveillance takes away our freedom and infringe on our rights in a ‘Big Brother’ fashion, are incorrect. The surveillance is a way of adding security to our daily life. Ultimately, as long as a citizen is doing nothing criminal, and has no incriminating content in the information they are sending or receiving, the government will have no use for the trivial data they collect, as they will have such an immense quantity of it.  The fact that we are so oblivious to some surveillance until it is pointed out to us is a clear signifier that it isn’t doing any active harm to the way we live. When surveillance is being used solely for the protection and benefit of the citizens, it’s undoubtedly a good thing. 

Surveillance is essential to our security; it enables us to live our lives safer, and with less crime. The benefits greatly outweigh any figment beliefs that a heavily monitored society is automatically an oppressive one.