I cannot say how wonderful the discussion was today with Group B in TOK. Incredible. Here are the questions that I wrote on the board that sprang up from your discussion. Take one or two and start new posts, delving into them more deeply. Be sure to use ways of knowing other than emotion and connect deeply with issues of language, thought, and perception.
1. Why is the language of the WBC more provocative than the language of other groups?
2. It was stated that the WBC profits from its provocative language. Comedy Central makes a profit from offensive speech as well. What is the difference?
3. How much is North Central responsible for the protest today?
4. Could the message of this play have been conveyed through a less controversial play?
5. By saying "X," am I imposing "X" on my listeners?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
#3
After the information we received about the play in class on Thursday, I believe our school is highly responsible for the protest about the play. For those who didn't hear, someone from our school actually called the Phelps family to get some quotes, get information, or something along those lines. Though the intention was supposedly (and hopefully) not to get the attention of the Phelps or to provoke them, I think it is obvious that it was going to cause some sort of conflict. This group LOOKS for opportunities around the nation to protest. By letting them know we were doing the play, it seems to me that we handed them an open invitation to come and protest. Their background and reputation should be very well known to anyone who knows anything about the Laramie Project, therefore there should be no surprise whatsoever that they showed up.
Besides the fact that they were let on, I believe that in performing this play at all North Central should have (and did) expect at least some controversy. Because WBC searches for opportunities such as this to protest, North Central could be considered somewhat responsible for the protest as a result of any advertisement of the play at all. However, that is not something we could really avoid and it is the position we put ourselves in by performing the play, so "responsibility" does not necessarily mean the school did anything it shouldn't have.
(Q#2)
The main difference is that the WBC makes money by sueing those who react inappropriately to their perfectly legal provocation. Comedy Central profits from its advertisers.
Additionally, the WBC's inflammatory remarks are an attempt to get a violent reaction from its opponents and Comedy Central's are an attempt to get a laugh.
The atmosphere they are presented in are incredibly different as well. One is a protest and one is a television program. If someone doesn't like what they see on TV they can turn it off, but if someone is protesting outside their place of business, it's harder to avoid.
Question 5-
By saying X, you are not imposing x on your listeners. You are offering x to the listener; it is the listener's choice to choose to listen to it.
Hearing and listening are two distinct verbs: By saying x, you *are* imposing (on those near enough to hear/receive your message) that they *hear* x, but not necessarily *listen* to x. The process of hearing is merely that the ear works and can pick up sounds. Listening, on the other hand, is not only hearing, but also processing what one hears as distinguished meanings.
Post a Comment