Monday, March 9, 2015
Language
Response to Language Texts
Your initial response should be in full sentences, paragraph form and should: a. State the text you chose b. State the purpose of the argument. (1 sentence) c. Write a claim defending or challenging this argument. (1 sentence) d. Examine the implications of this argument on today’s society? (2-3 sentences) Then read your classmates posts. Pick two classmate’s to respond to. Your response should include- a. Whether you agree or disagree with their position and why. b. One question to further their thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read "Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia" by Ray Magliozzi. The purpose of this essay was to point out how confusing Starbucks' drink size labels are. The confusing size labels harm a customers experience due to the inconvenience of how much effort it takes to communicate the correct size to the employee. Many companies use similar tactics to try and market their goods. By ordering a "large" and getting a 'small', a customer may feel like they are getting a large drink for the price of a small one. However, it only frustrates the customer, holds up the line, and makes Starbucks appear as not very customer-friendly.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you Nicole. Many companies and advertisers use words to confuse customers or manipulate them into buying things they weren’t sure off. They use clever words that have weird meanings or switch meanings of the basic words to be different than their competitors. The customer is usually vulnerable when they go into stores and the stores prey on these type of people to help their own business. A question to think about is society evolving to make things more complicated than they need to be? And why?
DeleteI agree with you Nicole that it can get confusing for many people. But Starbucks is using a different sizing system as a gimmick to put it self ahead of other competitors, they want to create something new for the public and make themselves appear to be more "fancy". Starbucks is one of the most successful coffee houses by appealing to mainstream culture and the "hipster" community. Many people have learned the Starbucks "system" and have caught on the trend as a way to become a "forward thinking" society. The current + new generation can easily adhere to this "system" without a problem in favor of Starbucks marketing strategy. Do you think people who come out with new things (like the Starbucks sizing system) help society by encouraging it to move forward?
DeleteNicole, I disagree with your statement that the sizing of Starbucks coffees harm the customer experience. From personal experience, I've found that if you say you want a small, they'll give you a small, and if not, it doesn't take that much effort to look up at a sign and find the proper size you want (as they all go in ascending order). That being said, I do think that the sizing is quite pointless, but I don't think it causes as much of a fuss as Magliozzi made it out to be. One question I have is, are things like sizing, and silly language, enough to attract or turn people away from certain brands? Why?
DeleteI agree with Olivia on this one, because most people know that Starbucks uses different terminology for their sizes. Personally, I do not go to Starbucks very often but when I do, I just ask for a small, medium, or large. The employees then will usually hold up the size of the container and show me to see if that is the size I want. I think that Magliozzi is exaggerating a little bit in his piece. Does Starbucks have different terminology for the fun of it or do you think they could be getting at something in society?
DeleteI agree with you Nicole, as companies often use confusing jargon to their advantage. Starbucks especially brings into view how large businesses can turn simple phrasing into a national issue. With unnecessary terms such "tall" and "short," what could've been aimed at creativity is now aggravating consumerism. But, isn't appealing to different audience, possibly by using unique terms, to increase income the entire point of big businesses? Why are we pointing our fingers at Starbucks when there are much larger issues concerning corporate companies at foot?
DeleteI agree with you Nicole because I think this labeling technique was more of a marketing ploy than expression of the company. It does not make Starbucks unique in a good way, yet in a more pretentious and irritating way that will ultimately turn more customers off than on. Do you think that giving the problem attention is what Starbucks wants?
DeleteBecca, I agree with you in that Magliozzi exaggerates in his article. It is one of the strategy that he employs to make his essay humorous. I think that your inquiry on whether or not Starbucks terminology attempts to highlight an issue in society is very insightful. I think that you may be on to something here since it would be puzzling to think that Magliozzi choice to write about this topic for no reason.
DeleteOlivia, I agree that Magliozzi exaggerates his article to emphasize his point, and that while its a small hassle its not a very significant one. To answer your question, I think that silly language is not a huge force driving people to or from a company. I think that coming up with new terms is meant to pique interest, and not just in Starbucks' case - chains such as McDonalds and Burger King have so many names for burgers and probably not many people can name the difference between a Whopper and a Quarter Pounder, for example. So the silly names are kind of useless. I think that marketers want people to get interested and want reasons to make commercials, and the Brand New Big Mac is more catchy and attention-grabbing for advertisements than just saying that now you can get a bigger sized burger. However, in reality, the names do not make or break whether customers stay customers or don't.
DeleteI agree with Nicole because I personally think this way of labeling their different sizes is just to create awe about their products. However, it just causes people to become anxious and troubled whenever they go to Starbucks. After awhile these unhappy customers would just leave and find companies that are much simpler. My question would be, What do you think is the purpose of using these jargon terminology when they could simply use tall, medium, small?
DeleteI read “Letters to the Editor in Response to the War of Words” which are letters written by different readers of Time Magazine addressed to the editor. The letters discussed an article of Time that was talked about the use of the words terrorist and terrorism in the Times. These different letters explained the actual definitions of the words war and terrorism and then refuted Time magazines use of it. Personally having read every Time magazine over the last year for my AP Government class, I know exactly where these readers’ comments are coming from. Many are outraged of the interchange between the word terrorist and Muslims or the use of war in one instance but terrorism whenever Muslims are involved. They state quotes from Time magazine itself and then use those against them to prove a different situation wrong. An idea to defend their claim is that a word that causes so much controversy such as terrorism, war, and polarization should be used very carefully because it gives the wrong idea to individuals who don’t have much background to the topic. Time magazine has a very large audience, even high school students, therefore it has much influence on the public’s opinion on certain controversial topics.
ReplyDeleteIram, I like how you backed up Time's side of the argument despite all of the Letters to the Editor. I was actually on the letter writers' side and my opinion was only made stronger while reading, however I understand your point. I still think that, although it may be more appealing to or made easier to understand for readers who are not familiar with the meanings and uses of such heavy words, it is important to focus on reporting accurately and plainly, as to avoid sugarcoating or misleading readers. But it is also important not to be careless with words and upset readers, so ideally Time would write as accurately as it could while not upsetting people - which of course is very hard to do with so many and such a large range of readers so I am hesitant to be as critical of their efforts as the letter writers were.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read “How Much Wallop Can a Simple Word Pack?” by Geoffrey Nunberg. The author examines the history and use of the word terror and its derivatives. Over time the word “terrorism” has gone through a linguistic shift and has transformed itself into “terror”. The author argues that broad linguistic shifts changes the way people perceive their world. “Terrorism” itself is a vague term but having “terror” replace it creates a substitute that is more amorphous and elastic, altering the understanding not just of the enemy, but of the war against it. “Terror” draws on a more complex set of meanings, it evokes both the actions of terrorists and the fear they are trying to engender. Over time, linguistics shifts are adhering to society through mainstream media, preparing language for the “long haul”. Language impacts society, just as society impacts language.
ReplyDeleteLay, I agree with your claim, and I do think that language and society both impact each other. As time goes on, our society experiences more and more that changes our perceptions of many things, language included, and as our language develops, we change meaning of certain things. I think that terror is one of those things that has evolved over time to encompass a multitude of things that we have experienced. What are other prominent linguistic shifts that have occurred, and how do our individual thoughts and experiences impact these shifts?
DeleteI agree with Lay. The language that we use has an impact on society and vice versa. Language is fluid and changes to fit what society needs to say when society needs to say it. "Terror" used to have a different impact on society, but as we get exposed to new things, the effect doesn't hold. "Terror" has evolved over time to fit what is currently happening in society and to be politically accurate. Do you think there are instances when a linguistics shift is detrimental or harmful to society or the individual?
DeleteLay, I agree with what you have said. I think that it is very important to use a proper word for the situation, regardless if there are several similar terms that can be used. While terrorism may be a common term used in our interaction with the middle east, it terror is more accurate since as you said, "it is more elastic," and since it is used to describe many aspects of the war we are engaged in, the more topics the word can cover the better. Why do you think we still use terrorism despite it not being the best word for the situation?
DeleteAlways Living in Spanish
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this text was to show the extreme strength and power that one language can hold on an individual. A language has an immense power over an individual, as the language dictates all communication and culture that the person experiences. Yesterday, my dad and I were driving up to Boston when on NPR there came a report saying that by 2050, Muslim would be the most popular religion in the world - outnumbering Christianity. With this influx of Muslims populating the Earth, they will also spread their language and their language will gain strength. Strangers will now be exposed to the Muslim language and their language will grow exponentially because language is so very powerful.
I agree with your point Presto, that the spread of language will correlate with its power. The more powerful a means of communication, the more quickly it will spread. English, for example spread rapidly during the past two centuries, because of the power its users held. I think it more of the power that its speakers possess though. How would you define "power" of a language? How would you quantify it?
DeleteI agree with what you say, Preston and that the spread of language will result in more power, because more and more people will now be using it. It will become easier to communicate in that particular language, and will soon be favored. In today's society English is the most dominant language, but as you said that will soon be changing. Does this mean that everyone should be fluent in the most abundant language?
DeleteI chose to read “Pride to One is Prejudice to Another” by Courtland Milloy. The purpose of Milloy’s argument is to inform readers about the prejudice Native Americans feel due to names of sports teams that are associated with Native Americans. I agree that names of certain sports teams are offensive to some minority groups and should be removed because the names are insensitive to past issues of racism and are derogatory towards groups of people. Keeping these names in place could cause the people affected by the names to be inferior, however, forcing teams to change their names would cause an uproar, most likely involving issues of free speech. Whatever the outcome of this debate is, many people will be upset.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Olivia that either way, people will be upset. There is no easy way to resolve this conflict, as there are strong supporters for both sides, and clear advantages and repercussions. I would wonder how many logos and brands have some sort of historical or racial connection that could be interpreted as offensive. I also wonder whether or not this would be considered a breach of free speech or print? Isn't it the right of the owner of a sports team to name it whatever he wants, regardless if some are offended?
DeleteOlivia I agree with your statement that keeping the names could cause those affected to be inferior, however, like you also said "forcing teams to change their names would cause an uproar." I do not think that it would be fair to make the teams change their names because the purpose behind it is not to offend anyone. It is part of the game; without team names, opponents would be hard to differentiate between. No matter what, there is always going to be someone who is upset, so would keeping the names really change much? or do you think that less people would be upset if some teams had to change their names?
DeleteOlivia, I agree that offensive sports team names should be changed. Free speech should not outweigh making groups feel inferior. If Native Americans feel offended, which they do according to the survey in the article, then the name should be changed, regardless of free speech legislation. What would the world say if there really was a "Blackies" team?
DeleteI agree with you that some people may take offense to team names, making them feel inferior. Instead of forcing a name change or belittle a group of people, I think awareness should be raised so people can be more sensitive towards each other. If name changes were imposed will sport culture be changed dramatically? Better or worse?
DeleteI agree to an extent with you, Olivia, because I think that people have clearly had a problem with these kinds of names and expressed their concern for some time now. However, I feel as though this situation has been blown out of proportion and those who speak out on the offense that they take are not actually tribal members or the people that the names are "supposed" to offend. I think that changing the names of these teams would only highlight the issue and cause even more outrage.
DeleteDo you think that there would be more people who are offended with the name now than there would be people who are offended if the name was changed?
DeleteOlivia, I also agree with you to an extent with your claim. Team names can undoubtedly cause an uproar, but I think that forcing a team to change its name can further single out those individuals. In many aspects of society today such as religion, race and sexuality can get lots of negative attention that can cause members of those groups to feel even more outsourced, when the goal is for everyone to be accepted. Would changing the team names really solve the underlying issue of discrimination?
DeleteOlivia, I agree completely with your claim. When it comes to free speech issues, people are always upset. Those “die hard” fans who love the Washington Redskins for example, wouldn't want the name changed because it's a part of their team. However, it's deragatory to Native Americans and I can see why they would want it to be changed. Either way, the debate is one that would be very difficult to be resolved and involved many varying opinions. Should the debate over this topic be so controversial, and is it important to respect the wishes of the Native Americans?
DeleteLiv, I agree with your claim because obviously making a sports team change their title just to make another group of people happy would definitely cause an uproar. In a way, yes Native Americans feel discriminated against but won't sports teams feel a similar way because they would have to change the way they express themselves? And everyone has the right to express themselves in their own manner. This is a heated topic because there are many different views as to the extent of the uproar.
DeleteI agree with Olivia. No matter what happens, somebody will always be upset by the outcome. this means that we need to fix the larger, more prominent issue so that even if people do get upset, society is better for the change. Working to eradicate racist slurs, especially in something as influential as sports team names, is a crucial choice that we as a society need to make to move forward in the movement for equality. Do you think it is better to be racial insensitive to appease sports fans over a petty issue like a name or to be racially sensitive and work as a nation to accept everybody?
DeleteOlivia, I agree with you over both the insensitivity of some sports team names and the matters of free speech that arrive when we think of banning these names. Personally, I think public institutions such as high schools and public universities should not use derogatory team names because I think that the public should not have to pay for a logo that is offensive. Recently, Hall High School has been debating changing its mascot from a Native American to an animal or just the letter “H” after students raised concerns. I think that it is a slightly grayer area in respects to private organizations such as the Washington Redskins, where I could see the argument for free speech. I am pretty neutral in terms of mascot naming/representation, so I really could not care less if the Washington Redskins or Cleveland Indians were to change their names to less offensive terms. Do the fans deserve a say in the free speech aspect of their team’s mascots?
DeleteOlivia, I agree with your claim because although a team’s name might not be offensive to a certain group, it might offend the people it is addressing. By using tribe names, Americans may be seen as ignorant of the Native American history to the Native Americans themselves. We are just throwing around the names as if they do not have any meaning behind them; however, we are failing to realize that there is a lot of history and culture that is associated with that name. One thing to consider is how would Native Americans feel if Americans not only named sports teams after them, but also dressed up like them in spirit of the sports event?
DeleteJeez, this was a popular one to respond to. I have to agree with here, such logos and print can certainly have negative connotations attached to them. In this specific case, I recall a book I read about the flag raisers on Iwo Jima during WWII. Ira Hayes, a Native American, was ostracized from society and forced to attend specialized schools for Native Americans. Here he was fiercely discriminated against by white teachers. Most forbid him to even speak in his native tongue. Well, Ira went on to become the poster boy of one of the largest liberty bond campaigns in the country and was revered as a hero. He's just one example of a Native American historical figure, but the point is that regardless of his or others historical significance, these companies seem rather oblivious to the effect on the people themselves. And even when they know of the social tension that their logo or print may cause, have not changed it. Do you think its the disregard for other cultures that causes the continuance of these logos? Or do you think the hassle of changing it and possible social reactions sway their choices?"
DeleteI agree with you in that these sports teams can be sensitive to native americans or other groups. However, I believe we cannot change the names of these teams because one group is upset about it. Culture changes fast, and and racism has declined significantly over the past decades. We are not responsible for what happened in the past nor do we endorse our these racial actions. As we combat racism, it is still important to keep things in perspective and realize that we live in a new time where we see the world and each other differently. We shouldn't have to change because others are offended.
DeleteI chose to read "Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia" by Ray Magliozzi. Magliozzi complains about the complicated naming system in place at Starbucks, arguing for the original more simple system of small/medium/large. I would agree with Magliozzi, that the system Starbucks should be replaced, because it is confusing and unnecessarily complicated. The strange system could lead to people unfamiliar with it taking long amounts of time in line, upsetting other patrons. Orders may also be incorrectly placed, leading to overall dissatisfaction with the chain, causing some people to be discouraged and turned away from the store.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're saying, but don't you think this situation is blown out of proportion, many people who go to Starbucks are returning customers and probably have a clear understanding of how to order, and it isn't that hard to figure out, so the idea that people might take long amounts of time in line is irrelevant. I don't believe that the naming system has a relatively huge impact on their customers, many don't care for anything besides the quality of the coffee. Will their naming system really cause the chain to face a significant loss in customers, or create a hassle?
DeleteThough I see your concerns over the original conflict that sizing could cause, I think that you neglect to acknowledge the unique purpose of the store. Starbucks was created to be a “higher class” barista café. Due to this intention, their sizing system reflects the sophistication of the experience. The tall/grande/venti system may complicate the first-time customers’ experience, but it often is embraced by those going to Starbucks for their refined business model. Do you think that a store should sacrifice it’s attributes to a theme for the comfort of first-time customers?
DeleteI agree with the idea that what Starbucks has done has inconvenienced many people but I don't necessarily agree that it should be completely abandoned. Similar to what Ally commented, I think that while the process might be extremely frustrating for some, Starbucks was going for a different atmosphere to set it apart from others like Dunkin. If people are really bothered by it then there are other choices. Would replacing the naming system help at all, especially since the younger generations have only known this particular method?
Delete
ReplyDeleteI read “Always Living in Spanish” by Marjorie Agosin. Marjorie was born in Maryland; however, her bringing up in Chile gave her the ability to write this piece. The purpose of this piece was to demonstrate how language can impact someone in more ways than imagined. It gives them a safe blanket to always go to if needed. She discussed how even when she came back to America with her parents, at night she would still write Spanish poems. They comforted her and took her mind off of being ridiculed and insulted. Traveling across the world gave Marjorie insight that she would have never gained if she were to have either stayed in America from the start or if she had never left Chile.
I definitely agree with you Becca that language is a safe blanket for people to rely on when needed. Personally I can understand and speak 3 more languages other than English: Pushto, Urdu, and Punjabi. When in a new environment with new people, it is often hard to make friends and become comfortable. However, if language is a commonality among people it is a cushion to fall back on and allows for people to become more comfortable around each other. A question to think about is can a language define who a person is?
DeleteBecca, I agree with your stance on the comfort that language can provide a person. With the multicultural society that we live in today, each nation is immerse in a variety of cultures. Often language is this barrier that prevents or allows people to connect with those outside of their everyday experiences. In effect, language proves to be a connection between cultures, allowing people to feel more akin to one another. Do you think that language could also impose feelings of isolation on those with multilingual backgrounds?
DeleteI agree with your claim, Becca. Language is a powerful aspect of one’s culture and background, as it serves as a means of both communication and identification. Our comfort in particular languages did not develop overnight. The more we learn about and are exposed to our primary language, whether it be through communication and other forms of media(ie books and television), the more comfortable and confident we become. This raises the question; If we make an effort to to become more aware and invested in learning about different languages around the world, will society be more accepting and willing to connect with others who exceed the boundaries of their native language?
DeleteBecca, I think you bring up some really great points and I completely agree. Agosin found comfort and familiarity in the Spanish Language as it is what she grew up with. She found it to hold so much sentiment in her heart thinking back to her younger years and the memories she had made and the emotions she had felt all while speaking in the Spanish language. When she moved back to America she found that she could only truly express herself when writing in Spanish, and I believe that these sentiments are a big portion of that ideology. I think our primary language can influence us on a much deeper level than we realize. You also mentioned how the integration of both Chilean and American cultures gave Agosin insight into the world around her which I found very interesting. Which do you feel should take greater precedence in our lives, staying true to who we are and celebrating the culture we are accustomed to or venturing out into the world and obtaining appreciating for portions of many different cultures around the world?
DeleteI can definitely agree with you Becca. I know personally, if I hadn't moved to Belgium, or didn't have a Polish mom then I wouldn't have ever gained the multicultural knowledge or understanding of the world I have now. I know it's so much harder to see the bigger picture when you are used to only ever seeing one thing, like for example staying in Chile for your whole life like Marjorie wanted. I know when she was younger she didn't see it, but over time she, without a doubt, couldn't have overlooked the amazing impact it had on her life, Chile wouldn't have given her the same opportunities.
DeleteMy question would just be do you think people who have to learn English see it as something that helps them, or is something they don't want?
I agree with Becca that language impacts us in many ways. Other than English, I can speak and understand two other languages. I feel knowing these languages help you stay connected to certain cultures even if that particular culture isn't that large in your area. I also feel that knowing certain languages show certain aspects of people like french is a more proper language and it requires patience. Chinese is a very traditional language and much thought is given into their work. My question would be as newer countries are emerging as top countries in education and technology, should English remain the generally common language to learn?
DeleteThe passage I chose to read was "Always Living in Spanish" by Marjorie Agosin. The purpose of this argument is to show that language is part of a culture, and can be a comfort for many people. It holds much more value than just words getting across a point, it can be part of your identity. For many people who grew up speaking a different language at home, speaking their language as adults could be a way to get in touch with their childhood, in a way they can't with English. It is an escape from reality, and can be consoling if you get homesick. This isn't much different from when one craves their mother's cooking when they've been away from home for too long. That is the beauty of languages, they aren't merely a way of communication, they have an impact on a much deeper level.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you varun that languages do serve as more that "just words getting across a point" because of the way that they can exemplify the unique aspects of different cultures. I liked your analogy regarding how speaking a person's native language can be just as comforting to them as getting a home cooked meal. Do you think that the popularity of a language such as English or Spanish impacts how it is perceived by other cultures?
DeleteI agree too that language is a vital part of culture even if it doesn't necessarily match up with the majority. I think that it is even more important to keep different languages alive at home when surrounded by a different one everywhere else because it can aid in the cultural awareness of one's self and for the people around them. Language, whether written or spoken, is one of the human race's greatest treasures and privileges. It is not something that should be neglected just because the norms of a society doesn't showcase that particular one. Why do certain countries stress the significance of learning an additional language and others don't?
DeleteLanguage can certainly be a comfort to all people. I totally agree. If I ever traveled to a country that did not speak English I would certainly feel uncomfortable and take refuge in people who did know English. Now I have a question that is inception - Is language a part of culture or are cultures created from different languages?
DeleteI chose "Letters to the Editor in Response to 'The War of Words.'" The purpose of the readers' arguments is to bring to light how the issues with word choice go beyond terrorism vs. terror. However, their comments only further Daniel Okrent's article by taking his point to a much higher level of impact. Shlomo Singer, for example, depicts how even the title "Israel-Palestine conflict" can bring about certain connotations. Although these connotations can upset people, the only way to save those people's feelings from getting hurt is by not saying anything at all; and that causes ignorance, which leads to uninformed decisions.
ReplyDeleteAmy, I agree that people often use euphemisms so they don't offend anyone and this can lead to a lack of knowledge about the actual situation. When people label a situation as "an act of terrorism", it may be the first thing they turn to because it's used so often to label so much. Do you think that if people educated themselves more about this word and its implications, they'd be able to better understand certain situations without ignorance or anyone getting offended?
DeleteAmy, I agree with you that if we don't say anything at all, it will lead to ignorance. Anytime an author writes, someone is going to get offended by what they ssay. It is practically impossible for them to be able to please everyone. If we force writers to try to use language and terms that please everyone, they won't be able to write anything. It is better for some to be offended for the sake of many being educated. Where do you think we should draw the line between not being offensive and informing the public?
DeleteI read the passage “Pride to One is Prejudice to Another” by Courtland Milloy. This argument was about the offensive use of Native American Tribal references and names for athletic teams. The author was very adamant about informing the public of the insensitivity of most who believe that the use of Native American references convey pride. I believe that the use of Native American Associated team names proves insensitive because of accurate surveys of such indigenous people and testimonies by Native American decedents portraying such offense. Though the debate over athletic names affects a majority of American sports fans, we often question the specificity of who is offended by names associated with particular bands of people. Often team name concerns have been proposed by minority groups, but rarely do team names conflict if based off majority association.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Ally. The names of several sports teams, regardless of the fact that they were not intended to do so, can be seen as offensive to Native Americans and other minority groups. By using these offensive terms as labels for sport teams, we are showing pride for our ability to be insensitive and feel superior to minorities. If sports team names reflected offensive and derogatory language that is used today, what affect would this have on society? Would this make people more aware and understanding of the views held by Native Americans and other minorities who are offended by team names such as “Redskins”?
DeleteAlly, I agree with your position of the use of Native American references for sports teams being offensive. Doing so can really hurt the Native American tribes being targeted, although that was not the intention behind using those names for athletic teams. In America's past, the treatment of Native American's hasn't been the greatest from taking their land to incorrectly portraying them in movies, so it is important that we don't continue this trend through sport team names. How can we ensure that Native Americans understand that the intentions of athletic team names are not to be offensive? Do you think there is a reason as to why Native American references are used over other names?
DeleteI agree with you, Ally, that the insensitivity of these team names is not a matter of pride, but of respect. I think that minorities should not have to face an uphill battle to get these offensive team names changed because I think most of the public should agree that the names should promote the team, not be derogatory towards any person for any reason. In terms of those die hard sports fans who would be outraged that their favorite team’s named changed, I wonder if they think this will really be detrimental to their team (as if being called the Washington Redskins has improved that team’s record). My question for you Ally, is whether the owners of these teams should be penalized for allowing such insensitive behavior?
DeleteAlly, I totally agree with you. I think these native American teams names and words used to support them can be very disrespectful and hurtful to many. It creates false stereotypes, for example the Redskins as a football team, we all know people cant be red skinned and so its just a name with a false description. This creates a huge marginalization of a group of people which is unfair in a society where we want all people to be equal no matter the ethnicity. I know the teams say they aren't trying to be offensive and they mean no harm, so then why do they refuse to change the name?
DeleteI chose to read, “Help us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia,” by Ray Magliozzi. The author’s purpose in writing this essay was to show his audience how confusing it can be for one to order a drink at Starbucks. The confusing labels for drink sizes that Starbucks has implemented can diminish customer satisfaction. From personal experience ,despite the fact that I have ordered drinks from Starbucks several times, every time I order a drink I am confused by their sizes. I’m sure there are many customers, much like myself, who order what they think may be one size, that ends up being another, causing them to pay for something they didn’t want or expect. Longer lines for ordering could also be a product of this confusion, as it may take customers more time to figure out what Starbucks label corresponds with the size of the drink that they want. These longer lines, could make customers impatient, which in turn could result in less business for the company.
ReplyDeleteAlli, I agree with your claim that it can be extremely confusing for someone to order a drink from Starbucks due to the names of sizes. This article has led me to question Starbucks reason behind changing the lingo of coffee goers. When the article discussed how Ray was forced to order in Starbucks sizes, it showed how trained the employees are to abide by this language. Are the words "tall" "grande" and "venti" what make Starbucks the most unique coffee shop?
DeleteI decided to read the article "Help us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia" by Ray Magiozzi. The purpose of this text was to show how frusterating it can be for a Starbucks customer to order a drink because of their need to complicate the names of drink sizes. I believe that a majority of the reason that Starbucks decided to change the way they make their customers order their drinks is because the company strives to be different. When I contemplate whether I was Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts, I always think of Starbucks as more high end. However, this need to create a divide between the way one orders a drink has caused a major inconvenience among coffee drinkers. The effect on this divide causes customers to get caught up in long lines, which can become a major issue when dealing with getting to work or school in the morning. If every coffee shop was to use the same universal language, it would end this major dispute.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would agree with you Emily, that having a "universal language" to use in all coffee shops would end the dispute that has currently been ensuing, I would argue that the varying languages serve an important function in the coffee industry. I would say this because as you stated, Starbucks has a different label for their drinks and this causes them to be unique and more memorable. In my opinion I believe that the differences in the language and labels that exist between coffee shops adds to the overall appeal. Do you think that other products such as sneakers/tennis shoes should one uniformed label to be identified by on a nationwide basis?
DeleteEmily, I understand where you are coming from, however, as someone who frequents Starbucks, I disagree with your claim. I think that this dispute is unnecessary due to that fact that at every Starbucks I have been to, the Baristas are more than happy to hear your order as a "small, medium, or large." Never once have I heard them correct a person or make them feel bad because they didn't understand the sizes. Starbucks strives to be different the sizes they have is one way that they provide a unique experience to the customers. Is it possible that this dilemma is blown out of proportion and is unnecessarily debated?
DeleteEmily, I agree that ending this dispute is important, but I disagree with your claim because personally I've never heard anyone complain about ordering drinks at starbucks. Its always just been whether the person likes starbucks or dunkin donuts better, which one they prefer. I don't think this dispute is as big as people make it appear. Changing the way to order drink sizes, in my opinion, is just a way for starbucks to have more business because it makes them more unique. How would either company have a good business if they are selling products the same way?
DeleteI can't believe how that cup sizes would irritate one to the point where he would write an essay on it. Jeff, you bring up a good suggestion in that this debate may be blown out of proportion since cup sizes are really insignificant in life. If people are confused about Starbucks not offering a small or a small being a "tall," I would question why they didn't ask the Baristas for clarification before they placed their order. Also if this is a big issue, I question why Starbucks hasn't put the cup sizes on display or solved this problem already. Bottom line, wouldn't quality outweigh quantity in this case? I mean, Starbucks seems to be carrying just fine as of now.
DeleteThis week the text that I chose to read was "Always Living in Spanish" by Marjorie Agosin. Marjorie's purpose in this argument was to exemplify the fact that there are many different ways in which an individual person can be impacted by language. Language is serves as more than just because of the fact that it also is reflective of different cultures and ways of living around the globe. When a person faces new languages there are many aspects of the language that are confusing; which accurately reflects the difference in cultures. Similarly, there are also some similarities in spoken language and culture that correlates between two languages. This goes to show that languages are beautiful because they help to connect people around the world and provide an outlet for expression that is unique for different cultures.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with what you wrote (after I got past the grammar errors). Language does reflect a person's culture and that is why languages are so diverse. One single language can definitely impact a person in many different ways. Also, I agree that it is fascinating how languages are connected. How do differing languages connect people?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with what Preston said, as language is an accurate representation of a culture. To me this is even more reflected in the various dialects within a single language. This manipulation of one language into various forms through the pronunciation of words or certain slang terms develops the language, showing the unique aspects of different cultures. Do you think that language can be evolved by a culture, and if so, to what extent?
DeleteThe title of the text I chose was “Mother Tongue” by Amy Tan. The purpose of the argument was to show that different types of English can exist without having to be “broken” or “limited”. I agree with this statement because not everyone who speaks this “broken” English is unable to understand English, they just don’t speak it the same way that native speakers do. Many immigrants and even people born in the U.S. speak this “broken” English and it doesn’t make them horrible at the language, it’s just the way that they learned how to speak it. My grandma is from Italy and she is able to understand English perfectly, but when she speaks it she is unable to turn her thoughts into ideas sometimes. Although she can get confused, it doesn’t mean that her way of speaking English is wrong, and it certainly isn’t “broken” because she can understand so much and read it so perfectly. Which is why, I believe that Amy Tan’s argument was able to perfectly sum up this topic in a way that shows people the reality of this topic.
ReplyDeleteI chose Help us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia by Ray Magliozzi. Magliozzi’s purpose was to express his frustrations with Starbucks’ unique and irritating method for naming the sizes of their beverages. I agree and sympathize with his resentment towards Starbucks and their “pretentious” choice to name drink sizes this way because of how it is affecting daily life. It is surprising and even a bit disconcerting that a seemingly simple name change can instigate such a mundane but influential debate in today’s society. The author employed examples like the feeling of embarrassment when you don’t know what to call the drink sizes in line with others watching you. Another aspect of society that gets affected is the business of popular cafes like Starbucks and Dunkin. How many people has this name change driven away? While the younger generations are growing up with this norm, “original” customers are witnesses to the immense impact a seemingly insignificant change in language can have on the mindset of the public. Why do people like Magliozzi, myself, and I’m sure at least a few other people out there (don’t lie) care so much about something like this?
ReplyDeleteMary Kate, I am in complete agreement with you and Ray Magliozzi on this one! I find it frankly absurd that Starbucks feels the need to overcomplicate their menus with these “pretentious” sizes. Though upon first glance this “issue” seems laughable, there is a lot of truth behind what Magliozzi is saying. I feel that this is an instance in which we are seeking out a level of convenience and comfort in terms of the language we use in our daily lives. Now, doesn’t it seem simplistic to merely learn that when you go to Starbucks a “tall” means a small, a “grande” means a medium, and a “venti” means a large? Yes, this probably wouldn’t be an unrealistic task, however, why would anyone want to do that when it is much easier to simply use the terms we are accustomed to when ordering a beverage, small, medium, or large. Some could look deeper into the situation and say that “our lack of acceptance of such terms is rooted in our ignorance and unwillingness to learn about other cultures”, but I say, when it’s 7 in the morning and I am running on a paltry 5 hours of sleep, I don’t want to have to put the slightest bit of thought into my coffee order, even if I am at the “culturally aware” and upstanding institution that is Starbucks.
DeleteI'll agree with you in part; this is laughable. Yes, I have been to Starbucks and know of the different labels for sizes. That being said, I'm going to have to disagree with y'all to an extent. Now, let's just take a step back and really analyze this whole situation. This "pretentious size" concept really had me reeling, I must say. Because think about it, is it really the people that serve you at Starbucks/ the company itself creating this pretentious attitude, or is it actually the people who drink the coffee. I mean seriously, this implied elitism isn't caused by the corporation, it's caused by the consumer. I see people still flaunting around Starbucks cups by sixth period. I know damn well that you have no coffee in that cup, and if you do, its gone cold. They just enjoy the attention and connotation associated with the logo, otherwise, they would have thrown it out. A rather silly concept. This type of behavior (taking this somewhere else, but stay with me) essentially shapes our social norms and social expectations. The way I look at it, this labeling system is a way to deviate from mainstream coffee and be unique. What's going to make their coffee stand out, why are you going to go there instead of Dunkin'? You get the idea. The funny thing about all of this is that people care about this so much. There are bigger problems than this, and this bump is merely a blemish on the face of a bigger picture. I guess what I'm getting at is this. Open your eyes folks, it's the people that is the problem, not the coffee.
DeleteJustin, I fully agree with you on all the points you just made there on your comment. In a sense, the fact that Starbucks holds such a prestige over other coffee shops in society with its unique names exposes the flaws in the people of our society in a way. However, according to your logic, if Starbucks were to get rid of its unique names, would this be Starbucks way of trying to change social expectations in our society today?
DeleteI read “Letters to the Editor in Response to The War of Words” which consists of a series of letters to Daniel Okrent, the editor. The purpose of this argument is to describe how the word “terrorism” is being misused because the second someone talks about any attack, terrorism always seems to be the first answer that many people think of. I agree with the letters which explain the different meanings/purposes of using the word “terrorist” or any relating words because I believe that writers that publish articles in Times Magazines must be cautious about how they use such words, as Times Magazine is read by a variety of people of different age groups. Terrorism already is a controversial topic in the country because so many people have different views on it but it is not the answer to every negative “attack” that happens in the country which people should understand. The way people will comprehend this is if writers of Times Magazine are cautious about how they use such words.
ReplyDeleteReeya, I agree with your position on how the word "terrorism" is misused because people make that reference to things no where near that bad. By making out of proportion associations with this word, readers can easily interpret things the wrong way. What limit should be set when using the word "terrorism" and others like it? Is there a certain time, place, and manner?
DeleteI agree with you Reeya when you say that terrorism is the word that people often turn to and blame when there's an attack and this causes many to misunderstand what terrorism actually means. Having the word solely being used with its true definition will help us and influential writers understand what is actually going on before we automatically label it. Do you think that people label attacks as terrorism simply to provide a sense of comfort and false security of knowledge? If people used its true definition, do you think they'd be more compelled to actually find out more about the attacks?
DeleteI read "Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia" by Ray Magliozzi. The purpose of this argument was to show how confusing the different drink sizes are at Starbucks. I agree with Magliozzi's argument because I completely understand the confusion that comes along with their different sizes. When I went to Starbucks for the first time, I didn't understand the rationale behind calling a small "tall", because the name totally contradicts its meaning. Many people who go to Starbucks have the same confusion, which can lead to long lines and unsatisfied customers when they receive a drink that is a different size than they intended to buy. Overall, having these nontraditional names can create a loss in business.
ReplyDeleteJess, I agree with your idea that the sizes of the beverages are confusing; however, Starbucks attract people of various ages, which makes me think that this intricate size system is actually having the opposite effect. Instead of repelling people, I think that it is drawing people in because they unconsciously realize that Starbucks might hold a level of prestige that other ordinary coffee shops might not have. One thing to consider is if Starbucks did not have these unique sizes, would it still hold the same level of sophistication as it does now?
DeleteIn response to Rani's question, I fully believe that the unique sizes that Starbucks assigns to its drinks are the exact reason why people usually consider Starbucks to have more prestige. Lately in our society, when someone doesn't understand a certain language, they deem it as "fancy" because it is only foreign to them. This also applies with Starbucks in this case with its differing names. So my question is, what do you think would happen if all coffee shops alike had differing names for its drinks, holding a differing sort of "language" for each shop?
Delete"Help Us Stop The Tall/Short Mafia" was written by Ray Magliozzi. Magliozzi wrote this humorous argument to discuss the linguistic decisions that Starbucks makes with their cup sizes. The sizing on Starbucks drinks is unnecessary, convoluted, and difficult to understand. The sizing on Starbucks cups is a mixture of vanity sizing and trying to be unique. By ordering a tall and getting a “small,” the customer feels like they are paying a little bit for a “large.” It also allows customers to feel good about themselves because they are drinking what they want to believe is a full-sized drink with only the amount of a “small” drink. While being unique is appreciated and encouraged in our modern society, the vanity sizing that Starbucks uses is ultimately harmful, holding up the lines and possibly deterring customers from even going to Starbucks.
ReplyDeleteI read “Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia” by Ray Magliozzi. Magliozzi uses this humorous essay to inform the public of how confusing Starbuck’s drink sizes are and how they can help stop Starbuck’s size confusion. He has a serious point when he says that many people aren’t pleased when they have to go through the size confusion but this may be a unique characteristic of Starbucks that instead attracts customers. While Magliozzi talked about how he routinely battled with the barista, it’s important to note how he continually goes there even though he doesn’t like the system. Occasionally, he’s forced to go to Dunkin Donuts but his call to action involves changing the Starbuck’s language, not avoiding that cafe altogether. The size-related nomenclature might actually be a successful marketing strategy since it’s inciting so much discussion.
ReplyDeleteZoha, I agree with your conclusion that Magliozzi and many others are confused and irritated with the sizes at starbucks due to their desire to be original and appeal to the vanity of their customers. Although, do you think that the language that they use for the sizing is the problem? Or is it simply the actual new sizing? I feel like it would more be that they are using confusing sizes and not just confusing language.
DeleteI read "How Much Wallop Can a Simple Word Pack" by Geoffrey Nunberg. The purpose of this text was to show how the word terrorism has had an improper linguistic shift as it is now interchanged with the word terror, covering a broad range of meanings. As culture and language evolve we tend to see both useful and inappropriate changes in the meanings of words, but as these words develop, it is important that they don't lose touch with their origin, or become too far changed. In the modern day and age we see numerous words that have changed from what they once meant, and this can be seen as a positive thing. However words that are in the "spotlight" of society must be used accurately, as it is important that they do not lose touch with what mean, as that can lead to confusion amongst the people, or inaccurately convey an idea.
ReplyDeletePat,
DeleteI see where you are coming from and while you raise good points, I have to disagree with you on this. I think that the the article is praising this linguistical shift in our society since it gives more precision in our communication and therefore convey our ideas more accurately. For example, in the past terrorism has had a dual meaning as a social force and of intense fear. However are time progressed, the latter definition prevailed and as a result, revolutionaries favored newer labels such as freedom fighters or the mujahadeen as opposed to terrorists. Also, this shift in language has made language relatable to a larger crowd by ridding of poorer substitutes that might have religious origins like the word "evil." Do you think that we should revisit meanings of words that might have drifted and been forgotten?
I chose to respond to the article “The War of Words: A Dispatch from the Front Lines” by Daniel Okrent. In the article, he describes how all of the words that we use have connotations whether we realize it or not, and especially in the media with the hot topic of terrorism, the words that are used can offend certain groups of people if we are not sensitive to them. I do not agree with Okrent. I think that we should be allowed to use any words that we want, so long as they are not used in a manner intending to cause harm to specific groups of people. Especially in the case the author focused on, it was an article he himself had written and received much negative feedback on the words that he used to describe certain groups of people and conflicts involved in the war on terror. It was an article, he didn’t force those people to read it. They chose to be offended by the words that he used, but they didn’t have to read the words in the first place! I think that if people are feeling offended by the terms and specific phrases a certain journalist uses, they should simply not read articles by that journalist rather than attacking the author and forcing them to change. It’s a constitutional right in America that we have free speech, we can say what we want, that includes using the words that we feel express the thoughts we wish to share. Beyond that, there was nothing wrong with the author’s words morally. He did not use the vocabulary that he did in the article in order to offend, mock, or hurt any party. I feel that so long as people’s words do not actively hurt another person, they should be free to be able to say what they want to, without feeling like the words they used are being censored.
ReplyDeleteI read “Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia” in which Ray Magliozzi tries to rally support against Starbucks’ naming of its beverage sizes. Magliozzi humorously notes the inconvenience and confusion that comes from the pretentious drink sizes, however, I couldn’t help but disagree with him. I don’t think that the sizes are a marketing technique to make the brand seem more sophisticated nor do I think that it causes a lot of pain and confusion for customers. I think that Magliozzi’s idea for dealing with this issue would be a lot more burdensome for fellow customers and employees than simply memorizing the sizes. Additionally, Magliozzi makes it sound like he frequents Starbucks a lot, so I think getting just a couple words down should not be that big of an inconvenience. I’m sure that employees understand what customers mean when they say the standard “small”, “medium”, or “large”, and would be happy to accommodate first time customers. Overall, I think that Magliozzi’s criticisms over three irregular words are rather immature, and show a lack of flexibility when it comes to language in marketing.
ReplyDeleteI read the article, “Studying Islam, Strengthening the Nation” by Peter Berkowitz and Michael McFaul in which they depicted the importance of educating Americans on the Middle East and Middle Eastern culture. Berkowitz and McFaul describe how a typical American’s knowledge of Islam is less than lacking, it is practically nonexistent. They argue that Islam is representative of one of the world’s great religions and provides valuable knowledge in the field of social science. They also argue that the information would serve helpful in our war against Islamic extremists, which represent only a very small portion of the Islamic faith. Berkowitz and McFaul equate this to how, during the Cold War, the U.S. invested billions into education and intelligence through things such as centers of Soviet studies, foreign language scholarships in Russian and Eastern European languages , and dual competency grants to enable graduate students to obtain expertise in security issues and Russian culture. I believe that increased learning about Islamic culture could be drastically beneficial to the U.S. society. This type of understanding spread across a vast amount of people could serve to eliminate a majority of the asinine misconceptions many Americans believe about the Islamic faith.
ReplyDeleteI read “Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia” by Ray Magliozzi. The author uses humor in order to convey the difficulties an individual faces when he or she simply wants to order a coffee at Starbucks. He argues that the naming of the beverage sizes is too complicated and indirectly pretentious, which is why if Starbucks adapted to the simple naming system of Dunkin Donuts, then customers would feel more comfortable ordering their drinks. I challenge this argument because I believe that although the size system may seem a little complicated, it gives the company a level of sophistication and uniqueness. It pushes customers to view Starbucks as a well-respected “coffee shop,” which might not be the same as their perception of Dunkin Donuts. Today, we see many teenagers ordering beverages from Starbucks daily. They are familiar with the different sizes, and it may seem intimidating at first, but in reality it has to be learned just like many things in life.
ReplyDeleteRani, I agree with what you say about teenagers being able to familiarize with the drink sizes. However, have you ever tried to teach an old person how to use a computer? The point is, not everyone can become familiarize with new lingo. That's why you don't see grandparents going around saying "swag," or "YOLO." Wouldn't it just be easier if Starbucks employees were more accommodating to those unwilling to use their unorthodox size names? Then every one could have their coffee and seem a little less like they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
DeleteHow Much Wallop Can a Single Word Pack by Geoffrey Nunberg
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Geoffrey Nunberg explains the how the word terror and its derivatives have changed since their origins by analyzing the word choices of editors and speech writers such as those from the Bush administration. Over time, words are manipulated to convey the way people perceive their world and develop newer meanings. These linguistic shifts serve to add more precision to the way information is understood like “war on” as opposed to “war against” with the former referring to a conflict that can be mitigated but not completely eradicated. It also indicates awareness of diverse beliefs since the newer meanings have drifted from theological influences. Aside from the positive receptions, these shifts in diction have also resulted in diminished meanings or decreased usage of words.
I read "Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia" by Ray Magliozzi. In this humorous essay, Ray talks about the confusing sizes of cups at Starbucks and how we don't deal with small, medium, or large anymore but tall, grande and venti. His clam is that these are ridiculous ways to categorize coffee cups because it falsely portrays different sizes. But in my opinion how can we really define short, medium, or tall? I feel like physical attributes are changing so much throughout the centuries. People now a days are much taller than two centuries ago, what was tall then isn't tall now, so with all these size norms changing, is it really a big deal that coffee cups are changing too? Is it possible that maybe like the norms for size of people, so are many other norms for sizes of different objects
ReplyDeleteedit to last sentence haha : Is it possible that maybe like the norms for size of people, norms for sizes of other objects are changing too?
Delete"Help Us Stop The Tall/Short Mafia" by Ray Magliozzi provides his audience with his point of view on Starbucks' linguistic choices regarding labeling of drink sizes. I do not entirely agree with Magliozzi, simply because I don't see the real importance of this issue. He really clings to the idea that these drink sizes only do harm and cause confusion. I know that I'm looking at this through a single lens, but are people that insecure that they have to really complain about drink names? Are there any serious effects from this linguistic choice? I have seen the development of new social norms, such as viewing Starbucks as a higher class coffee. But I don't think that the superiority associated with Starbucks comes from the coffee names as much they do from the prices of the drinks. I guess it takes a certain level of maturity to realize that coffee is coffee, no matter what you call it.
ReplyDeleteRay Magliozzi's opinion piece, "Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia" is a call to action to change the names of Starbucks coffee sizes. While I think it is ridiculous to waste time on trivial manners such as this, I think an underlying call is in order. It is time to stand up against the jargon used by big companies in order to trick consumers. Fine print, "limited" warranties, terms and conditions, they're all ways you're being robbed. Companies don't care if you're happy, they care about their bottom line. Products aren't built to last forever, they're meant to break so you have to go out and buy another. Isn't it time for the consumers to stand up against these big companies?
ReplyDeleteMax, I agree that companies are mainly concerned with their "bottom line" goal of sales. However, I don't believe Starbucks implemented titles like "venti" or "grande" to trick consumers because there is no trick involved. I believe these changes were made in an attempt to separate Starbucks from conventional coffee shops through a unique culture. Regardless, isnt it the consumers responsibility not to be tricked?
DeleteMax, I don't think that Starbucks changed the names in order to trick customers and boost profits, I think that they hoped to appeal to younger customers by using new trendy terms. Regardless, I think that you are completely right, we need to stand up against corporations and voice our opinions. Customers should not be powerless, they need to stand up to these companies. Although I do question if pestering the cashier is the right approach, they didn't decide what to call the drink sizes. How do you think we should stand up to these corporations?
DeleteIn "Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia", Ray Magliozzi describes the impracticalities and annoyances he and others experience with the size of Starbucks coffees. Starbucks has rejected the normal "large" or "small" titles, and have instead implemented confusing sizes such as "grande" or "venti". Magliozzi's call to action is for every Starbucks consumer to refuse to use their language and to ask for their money's worth of coffee without clarifying a size. This humorous essay highlights the complexity of language. Even in America's most popular coffee shop is language manipulated and complicated. We can't even agree on semantics in a place we go everyday. Is Starbucks pushing the progression of language further, or are they attempting to develop a unique culture that that is hindering their accessibility?
ReplyDeleteI read "Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia" by Ray Magliozzi. Magliozzi’s purpose is to address the different and confusing language that Starbucks uses to name the sizes of their cups. The different words such as grande and venti cause much distress to the public by making them question the meaning behind every size available. It also makes the company look bad and lose daily/annual revenue. The inconvenience could cause lines to build up which in turn would affect the total amount of customers daily. Enough of this could lead to customers frequenting other similar companies who have menus that are much easier to comprehend.
ReplyDeleteIn reading "Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia", Ray Magliozzi utilizes a prime, everyday example of the differing names for sizes in Starbucks in order to describe the problems facing the language in our society today. While I do agree with Magliozzi's point to some extent, I do not believe that Starbucks should get rid of its unique size names for this purpose. Starbucks only utilizes its unique names to stand out and brand themselves into our differing society today. Refusing to use their nomenclature would only cause little implications on society, but would only cause a lack of uniqueness and variety, which is vital to a healthy society. So, if you think about the opposite of what Magliozzi is proposing, would it be a good thing to have differing languages (or nomenclatures) spread more throughout society today, such as Starbucks is doing with their coffee sizes?
ReplyDeleteJason, I agree that we need to have a diverse nomenclature in society, and that Starbucks is dust trying to stand out. However the cup sizes in particular are a poor implementation, because they cause unnecessary confusion. Starbucks uses creative names for other things, such as their flavors, without causing confusion. Can we agree that its fine to use unique nomenclature as long as it does not cause trouble for customers?
DeleteI read “Help Us Overthrow the Tall/Short Mafia” by Ray Magliozzi. In this argument he is opposed the the naming system of the drink options at popular coffee joint, Starbucks. I agree with Magliozzi in that Starbuck’s naming structure is unnecessarily complicated and somewhat pretentious. For example, my friend went into starbucks for her and observed the menu. She decided she was in the moog for a lot of coffee so she order a tall. When she received her coffee she was upset to find that she had gotten the smallest possible size. Due to the inconvenience she rarely returns to starbucks. Starbuck's complicated naming can cause them to lose business like my friend and the author, who instead decided to go to dunkin donuts.
ReplyDeleteI read "More Couples Screening Embryos for Gender" by Marilynn Marchione and Lindsey Tanner. The authors wrote this news story to inform readers about embryo screening and the 2 sides of its debate. Embryo screening can be very beneficial to couples, but it's moral implications lead to limiting it to those with medical justifications. The idea of having a perfect baby is a dream for many couples. On the contrary, the idea of everyone screening embryos to manufacture the perfect babies does not generate the same excitement; it begins to feel uncomfortable. This discomfort is what's driving society to be so firmly against embryo screening, but since it is the safest option for babies of parents with genetic diseases, or siblings in need of transfusions, etc. it should be used for medical purposes.
ReplyDelete