Research – Ilovemydog

Posted on April 14, 2024 by ilovemydog

Rock’s Golden Era: Activism Then and Now

In the 1960s and 1970s, rock endured what many consider its “golden era.” During this time, rock bands created catchy tunes and songs with profound social impact. Artists used their music as a vehicle and tool to challenge norms and advocate for meaningful change. However, the definition of “making a difference” in people’s lives varies. Many songs out there challenged different things that were causing injustices in the world. The songs addressed social issues like civil rights, gender equality, and anti-war sentiments, while others may have addressed different societal issues at that time. The term “social reform” can relate to a broad spectrum of many different perspectives, but in this case, it is while discussing the transformative power of rock music during its golden age.  

The 60s and 70s were filled with significant global issues, many of which are still seen today but were particularly prominent during this period. These issues include civil rights, gender equality, and anti-war movements. Musicians during this time rose to the occasion, using their influence on their audience to shine a light and perspective on these specific issues. Through their music, they sought to challenge the societal norms, advocate for change, and to offer a new and enlightened perspective on these matters. This change could have been presented through protest songs, anthems, or calls for peace. Artists used their platform to shape the discourse presented in society and inspire diverse types of action on these issues as well.  

Artists known for their activism in this time include, but are not limited to, Pete Townshend of “The Who” and Sting from “The Police.” In an article on the Human Rights’ Careers website called “15 Artists Using Music to Promote Human Rights,” it is said that Pete Townshend “was the first musician to perform for Amnesty International’s Human Rights Concerts and inspired other renowned rock musicians to support the human rights cause.” Townshend’s commitment to using his music as a platform for human rights highlights the significant impact artists can have beyond just their music, as Townshend influenced other renowned rock musicians to support the cause. Sting is known for his activism and is said to have “written songs inspired by his concern for world hunger and oppressive political regimes.” A notable example is his hit single “Russians,” which was released during the Cold War era. This song addressed the nuclear arms race and the need for a solution to it all. He not only raised awareness but provoked thought and reflection on the global issue. These artists fought through their music to bring their beliefs forward to their major audiences.  

A better example of an artist during the “golden age” using their platform to contribute to social change is Pete Seeger and his song “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy.” This track carries allusions to the Vietnam War. Seeger makes metaphors to a military commander leading his troops into a dangerous river. Which symbolizes the consequence of blindly following authority. The lyrics portray the pointlessness of the war and show what soldiers and civilians may be facing morally. In the book, “Pete Seeger, Musical Revolutionary,” by Brett Clark and Scott Borchert, it is said that “a 1968 audience would have clearly understood that this song is also about Vietnam.” In 1967, Seeger, an already blacklisted artist, performed his song on the Smothers Brothers comedy hour and was censored by CBS. In the same book is his response to being censored which is, “I’m very grateful to C.B.S. for letting me return to commercial broadcasting,” he was quoted in the New York Times, “but I think what they did was wrong, and I am really concerned about it. I think the public should know that their airwaves are censored for ideas as well as for sex.” Seeger did not agree with the censorship put on his performance. With his power of music, he added to an ongoing anti-war rebellion and sparked the interest of even more people across the United States. But by 1968 these censors relented, and Seeger returned to the show. He ended up playing the same song, and this time it was broadcast to the homes of millions of people.  

From this “golden era” came the gradual shift to modern music and rock. Within this shift, there were changes in style, theme, and demographics. The style changes became more colorful and sparkly, the themes changed to the use of many swear words and sexually suggestive lyrics, and the demographics geared more towards the satisfaction of young teens. With these changes, the result was getting rid of overly political themes in modern music.  

This “golden era” of rock music had not only a certain style and sound but also a commitment to rebellion and social change. While there may be certain eras of music that share similarities in their rebellious forms or themes, the cultural impact and historical context of the “golden era” set it apart as a unique period of innovation and change. It may seem that the golden era or rock could come back, but the landscape of the music industry and society has evolved making the same replication of the “golden era” unlikely.  

Modern music has the industry’s influence glooming over its shoulders. The music industry now takes artists, constructs, and shapes what is produced and how. Many record labels in modern times decide what is considered an acceptable genre and song. Along with this is also the industry’s marketing control. They decide what to put out, who to collaborate with, and who to direct the content to. Making it easier for the artists to succeed with no need or want to speak out against the conflicts around the globe. Marketability also causes artists to want to appeal to mainstream media. The fear of speaking out could be influenced by the stability that the artists receive as well as the opportunities given to them if they “behave” according to the record labels’ standards.  

The industry was around in the 60s and 70s, but they were not as controlling over artists as they are now. During that time, musicians had creative control over what they wanted to release and with that creative control, the issues that they felt needed to be addressed could be. Without industry towering over them, they had the freedom to do what they thought was right.  

Realistically, there have been musicians in modern times who used their platform and music to speak out against the world’s injustices. Nowadays the issue is that when artists do speak out, the message is not always received, and speaking out can affect them in many ways. Some of these ways are with business and personal issues. One of the artists that have recently used their platform is Annie Lennox. In the article on MEAWW’s website called, “Internet furious after Annie Lennox’s live Grammys performance ‘cut off’ over singer’s plea for ceasefire in Gaza,” it is said that “CBS cut the political activist’s mic.” While on stage and being broadcast to the world, Lennox spoke out about the war but was censored overall.  

These days when artists speak out censorship and blacklisting are the scariest part. The backlash of fans all over the world plays a significant role as well. Cancel culture has become some frequent that overall, most musicians with major platforms do not feel the need to speak out.  

It is also important to point out that there are artists that create uproar with their content, but they may not be speaking about global issues. These days a lot of artists put out provocative content or have behavior that seems “out of pocket,” But usually this behavior tends to create a rise in streams and album sales. Working more for the industry than against.  

The “golden era” of rock music in the 60s and 70s was built around the musicians who used their music and platforms to address the issues that pressed society at that time. Artists like Pete Townsend, Sting, and Pete Seeger are prime examples of using music to create conversations about civil rights, anti-war movements, and human rights. But with the way modern music evolved, the spark that once led musicians to speak out about these problems has had a noticeable shift. This influence comes from the new control and powers of the music industry and the influence of marketability. Although some modern musicians do use their platforms, many stop out of fear. This fear is from the censorship and backlash. Despite these challenges, the “golden era” of rock music serves as the sole reminder of how music can affect and inspire change with real-life issues and social constructs, but what is the goal of music? 

The main goal of music is self-expression, which is something that has constantly been echoed throughout history, including in the works belonging to musicians of the golden era of rock. For example, John Lennon’s reflections on peace and social justice. Also, like Bob Dylan and his protest anthems. Music was created to show emotion and demonstrate strong feelings. Yet, within the music industry, there has been a notable shift towards prioritizing commercial success over artist integrity. Producing music has become more about making money and less about producing a soulful song. Artists feel societal pressure to produce songs that will hit top charts from their managers and supervisors, rather than producing music they believe in. The influence of the music industry has stifled musicians, resulting in a decline of the creation and personal aspect of music as well as the creation of politically influential songs.  

The lessened autonomy of music directly stems from the music industry enforcing stricter protocols on their artists. Compared to the 1960s and 1970s, called the Golden Age of Music, artists had to sign more restrictive contracts. Signing with labels is almost 100% necessary for artists to be successful, but many of these contracts are not fair or equally as beneficial for the artist as the label.  

Not only are these contracts confusing and restricting, but many artists are young and naive, which means they are more likely to get a contract that takes advantage of them and their music. For example, LeAnn Rimes, a young country music star, had signed a contract with Curb Records at 12 years old and “might be 35 years old before she finished delivering the 21 albums, she owes the record company”, this star being one of many to this deal with the devil.  

Kevin Murray, a previous music agent states that “if you don’t sign a contract, you don’t have a career” which makes the idea of artists signing themselves to a label much more enticing, despite the strict rules and lessened personality within their music. If artists must follow certain rules or are forced to produce a certain amount of music, their concern will be less with the quality of their work but with quantity. Artists will continue to pump out superficial songs rather than taking the time and effort to make their music have meaning, even if it is simply a more personal song rather than a grand political statement.  

Artists continue to be controlled outside their contracts with their own market-driven music production choices. Artists know which songs will hit the top charts in the modern day, therefore causing them to write shallow music that does not carry any weight. This means that the need for money and fame outweighs their intrinsic motivation to write music. For example, Ed Sheeran has talked about how “It’s kind of got to a point in the music industry where everything has to be the biggest and best every time, and then better the next time.” He genuinely believes that the industry only looks for what could be the best and not what the artist or people may want.  

Similarly, artists are less likely to take any sort of political stand in their music during this modern era because of the intense “cancel culture” that follows all celebrities and artists. “Cancel culture” is a new term with the rise of excessive social media use in which celebrities are “canceled” for specific actions or overly political lyrics. and therefore, lose their media presence and following, and usually a lot of money. Because artists can be so easily “canceled” on social platforms, the idea of writing a politically or socially vulnerable piece is not as appealing as writing a guarded, easy-to-win hit. For example, Sinead O’ Connor made a lot of people upset in 1992 when she ripped up the Pope’s picture on live television. “Sinead was not getting a lot of love at the time – she was controversial,” and even with all this she decided to shock the people at SNL when she tore the picture. Causing people to turn against her even more and even “cancel” her for her political actions.  

 While one might argue that social media makes it easier for listeners to have a deeper and more personal connection to the artist and their music, online culture is so toxic that many artists are afraid to let their listeners get that close. However, artists hiding their true intentions come with a price: less impactful music that is not causing the political form it used to. According to Youth Time Magazine, artists say “One of my greatest fears as an artist is being canceled as a musician,” which makes artists more “careful” so to speak when regarding any polar stances they take, whether on their social media or within their albums.  

This brings around a general point: the lack of politically relevant and influential music contributes to a reduced effect of music on listeners’ engagement with social and political issues. While artists are stuck in their contracts and “safety nets,” people turn to social media for political ideas rather than the previously largest type of media for common people: music. Pew Research Center study highlights that a substantial portion of Americans engage in political and social activities through social media. Artists are losing their grip on listeners because of their less involved music causing people to be less engaged with today’s societal issues.  

Music is meant to be challenging and force people to think outside of their comfort zones. Hearing of political ideas through different forms of media allows people to be constantly thinking about modern-day issues from different points of view. Artists failing to produce this complex music causes people to be disengaged, indifferent, or even worse, not aware of the injustice or problem in the first place. To revive music’s role as a form of social and political activism, artists should take advantage of social media campaigns. Artists from diverse backgrounds can collaborate on projects that highlight social and political issues from a global perspective and promote this music on their many platforms available. This not only advertises their music but promotes the political reform that music once provided many. The diminishing personal and political impact of music can be attributed to the music industry’s control over the creative output of artists, leading to a reduction in the production of personal and socially influential tracks. 

Now, today’s activist musicians have abandoned the protest anthem in favor of social media campaigns. The “golden era” of rock music, consisted of artists using their music as a potent tool for rebellion and societal reform, leaving a mark on the cultural landscape. However, as music continued to develop the activism that once came with rock music has waned in the modern era. Now fewer artists, to almost none, use their platforms for social change and activism. But some may not agree with this. People out there may believe that musicians have continued to remain engaged in activism through evolved methods.  

To them, the spirit of activism remains strong within the music they listen to and the creators of their favorite songs. According to The Fox Magazine, “Vic Mensa…is giving back to his roots by using his platform to address the lack of fresh water in parts of Ghana.” While Mensa is speaking out for the people of Ghana, he is doing so through his platform. Since the “golden era” of rock consisted of artists using their music as a direct vehicle for social commentary, this approach represents a departure from tradition. While many modern artists continue to use their social media platforms to advocate for social justice and amplify the voices of those who cannot be heard, there is a noticeable stray from the when artists sang about the problems they wanted to highlight and proclaimed hopes for societal change through their music. Instead, activism has taken on new forms, with artists using their influence and platforms to address issues outside of their music. In this case, Mensa’s advocacy for the people of Ghana serves as an example of this evolving approach to activism within the music industry. 

Social media is a major outlet for modern musicians to use their voices, but some even take it on stage to live audiences. At the 2024 Grammys, Phoebe Bridgers of the band ‘Boygenius’ spoke out against the former CEO of the Grammys. In the article, by x96 news, the author says, “Not only did Bridgers criticize… she also highlighted the sexual assault allegations Portnow faces, bluntly telling him to “rot in piss.” This example illustrates how performers are increasingly using awards stages to use against individuals, but often fail to address the same issues in their music. While Bridgers’ onstage protest is a powerful form of activism, it differs from the tradition of artists using their music to speak about social injustices or abuses.  

However, upon closer examination, the assertion crumbles. While it may be true that a lot of modern musicians use their platforms to talk about the issues that are now present in the modern world, the depth that these artists go to with their engagements is not enough in comparison to the revolutionary changes that were witnessed during the “golden era” of rock. Activism today often feels performative or done for personal gain rather than the raw energy and commitments that helped characterize the protests of the past. For example, in 2020 when the Black Lives Matter movement was at its peak, a lot of celebrities took to their social media to speak out. Amongst these celebrities were a handful of modern musicians. In an article, by The Epitaph, some of these musicians are listed, including but not limited to “…Katy Perry, Britney Spears, Drake…” These three musicians participated in something that was called “black out Tuesday.” It was a trending hashtag across multiple platforms where people would post a black square. For this movement, the black square did nothing. It was all performative.  

Much of the “golden era” was spent influencing supporters to help make changes in the society that everyone lived in. Music was the main contender and it spoke to the listeners. Musicians cared what they were writing about and told their followers to make a difference in the world they lived in. For example, there were a lot of the “protest anthems” during the time of the Vietnam War. Many did not know what the war was about or how it was being approached, but music made that much of a difference. People listened and understood that it was not something they approved of. One major example out of many is, John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance.” He had a major following and released this to speak to his audience.  

The debate surrounding performative activism in the music industry is complex and multifaceted. While some modern musicians have been applauded and appreciated for their genuine concern and commitment to social justice causes and their impactful activism, others have faced criticism for engaging in performative gestures that prioritize publicity over genuine advocacy. Overall, the “golden era” of rock is what had major effects on the social injustices surrounding the world.  

References

(PDF) Pete Seeger, musical revolutionary – researchgate. (n.d.).

Bharti, A. (2024, February 5). “shame on you!” Grammys under fire for cutting off Annie Lennox’s mic as she pleads for ceasefire in Gaza. MEAWW.

Higa, K. (2022, July 19). 15 artists using music to promote human rights. Human Rights Careers.

Anderson, M. (2018, July 11). 1. public attitudes toward political engagement on social media. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech.

Herron, I. (2022, May 25). The complicated relationship of music and cancel culture. Youth Time Magazine: News that Inspires, Updates that Matter.

Laura. (2001, September 6). Music stars complain about stringent contracts. The New York Times.

CBS Interactive. (n.d.). Ed Sheeran says he’s breaking free from industry pressures with new album “Autumn variations”: “I don’t care what people think.” CBS News.

Guardian News and Media. (2023, July 27). “no one knew what to do”: When Sinéad O’Connor ripped up the Pope’s photo on TV – the inside story. The Guardian.

Garn, T. (2024, February 15). Boygenius dismantles industry misogynist at Grammys. X96.

Penalosa, D. (n.d.). Performative activism does more harm than good. The Epitaph.

Smith, C. (2023, February 10). 4 modern day artists who use their music to speak on real-world issues. The Fox Magazine.

Posted in ILoveMyDog, Portfolio—ILoveMyDog | 2 Comments

Research–Gymrat

Posted on April 14, 2024 by Gymrat

Social Media Impact on Body Image Judgement

Ever since social media started existing there has been a significant change in the way people started to perceive themselves. Instead of having more positive as was expected, there has been an increase in negative outlooks with people specifically with their body image 

The online world is so stocked with images of human bodies that depending on where we click, and how critical we are of ourselves, we can develop either a healthy appreciation for marvelous physiques or a defective hatred of our imperfect bodies. But those perfect bodies we see and fear that we will never emulate may just be digitized lies that nobody, not even the models themselves we compare ourselves to that even they have never achieved, in which case we’re approaching ourselves for nothing.

The influence on body perception in the age of social media, digital communication, and self-criticism is made worse by the frequency of false representations on social media. “Self-criticism” refers to internalized judgment and is more intense regarding the inaccurate representations of bodies on social media. One major factor in the escalation of body dysmorphia and its detrimental impacts on mental health and social interactions is the ongoing dissemination of an idealized and unrealistic representation of bodies on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Social media users frequently post carefully chosen and digitally improved photographs that substantially alter reality. This behavior is consistent with studies showing the conflicting effects of social media and online communication on the well-being of adolescents, stressing negative consequences. In their 2013 comprehensive survey 43 surveys from 2003 to 2013, Paul Best and others found mixed results regarding the effect of social media on adolescent well-being. Other authors have reported mixed findings, but there was significant evidence that youth who use social media are subject to cyberbullying, depression, and social isolation.

They observed that although technological advances online can offer benefits like heightened self-worth and a sense of social support, they can also put people at risk, worsening problems like cyberbullying, depression, and social isolation. The review’s contradicting findings highlight the need for more investigation to fully comprehend the complex relationships among social media, body image, and mental health. As social media continues to shape societal perceptions of beauty, the challenges associated with maintaining a positive self-image in the digital age remain a critical area for exploration and intervention.

Online spaces for self-presentation and social media play a major role in the significant prevalence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) among young users, around the world. An example would be in Saudi Arabia where the nation’s heavy reliance on social media hurts how people feel about their bodies, as demonstrated by the research done in 2020 by Alsaidan et al. BDD is fueled by the impossible standards established by supposed perfect bodies and carefully edited photos on social media sites like Instagram and Snapchat, which create a vicious cycle of comparison and self-criticism. 4.2% of participants in the study satisfied the criteria for BDD, with younger people having a greater risk of the condition. Notably, BDD was linked to more time spent on Snapchat and Instagram and an increased tendency to compare one’s appearance to celebrities on social media. The BDD group reported more incidents of harassment as well as a past medical history of mental health issues. The study conducted by Alsaidan highlights the importance of how social media can cause BDD, by simply comparing it to body images that cause concerns even with skin disfigurements (64.2%) or hair issues (42.3%).

The way that bodies are portrayed on social media correlates to a loss in mental health due to continuous self-criticism. People who are struggling with the increasing gap between their perceived and real identities are more likely to experience anxiety, sadness, and body dysmorphic disorders. A toxic mindset that undermines self-esteem and magnifies negative self-perceptions is fostered by frequent comparison due to social media. Furthermore, a study carried out in 2017 by Gkotsis et al. explores how social media contributes to the development of mental health disorders. The work applies informed analysis posts from the Reddit social media to identify and categorize posts on mental illness based on 11 disorder themes. The results show the potential of deep learning as a research tool, with a 91.08% accuracy rate in identifying postings connected to mental illness and a 71.37% weighted average accuracy rate in choosing the correct theme. To help with organized content and focused interventions for mental health, the study highlights how crucial it is to understand user-generated information on social media platforms.

The impact of social media on modern society is complex and affects social relationships on a worldwide scale. According to another study conducted in 2023 by Azzaakiyyah, social media offers advantages like improved connectedness, cross-cultural interaction, and emotional support. However, challenges arise, including “shared solitude,” as face-to-face interactions decline. When people create their online personas, their formation of identity changes, leading to unhealthy social comparisons and inaccurate self-perception. Social media promotes inclusivity and community development but makes it easier for false information to propagate. Fostering digital literacy, communication abilities, and moral online conduct are necessary to strike a balance. Education is essential to preserve the integrity of human connections in the digital age because it enables people to navigate the digital landscape responsibly and strike a good balance between virtual and in-person encounters. The influence goes beyond the person and impacts social relationships. Genuine connections suffer from avoidance behaviors resulting from self-criticism. Social media, which was first created to help people connect, unintentionally becomes an escape from loneliness as people avoid deep conversations out of fear of being judged for their presumed physical flaws.

Adolescent self-image around the world keeps deteriorating because of social media. Over time with the growing influence social media has been having on adolescents today and even the younger generation who have been growing up with phones, it has been seen that those kids have harsher self-criticism about body image. With this continuing and the younger generation being born with phones, society will start depending on the false reality of what they are meant to look like; as well as increasing mental health disorders.

Globally, adolescents’ perceptions of themselves are alarmingly deteriorating, mostly because social media has such a strong influence. The younger generation, who have grown up with smartphones as constant companions, is particularly affected by this tendency. A culture of comparison and insecurity has been fostered by the pressure to live up to unachievable beauty standards and perfect online avatars. Adolescents who accept these unattainable norms are more likely to experience mental health illnesses and problems with body image. Additionally, the normalizing of photo-editing software and filters distorts reality even more by upholding an unachievable standard of beauty. Younger generations are more likely to get dependent on these illusory realities as they grow up in a world where digital connection is commonplace. 

The adolescent stage of a person’s life is the most vulnerable. With social media now being a part of the everyday world and society it has made it easier for adolescents to gain body image issues. One of the problems with this is the amount being consumed. The article, Reducing Social Media Use Significantly Improves Body Image in Teens, Young Adults stated, “Youth are spending, on average, between six to eight hours per day on screens, much of it on social media.” Constant scrolling for hours leads people to see those whom they follow, “celebrities and fashion or fitness models, which we know leads to an internalization of beauty ideals that are unattainable for almost everyone.” Not only are adolescents getting pounded on a day-to-day basis with seeing these people on their social media and wanting to look like them, but they are also being lied to and they still believe it. This is what leads to mental health issues and eating disorders.

Social media first has to affect the brain to start affecting the teenager’s body image, which is why mental health and body image have a strong correlation. The article, Influence of Social Media on Teenagers’ Body Image, talks about how social media has “the added pressure…on influencing body image for adolescents heightened by the content.” The pressure comes from the “influencers” teenagers watch and see the way they look and live and want the lifestyle. Body image dissatisfaction can range from extreme thinness, large breasts, V shapes, 6 packs, toned arms, and so much more. Teenagers are basically prayed upon by social media because they continue to scroll with the desire of wanting to look like their idol still being present. Often with unrealistic bodies that are nowhere near healthy but because it looks “good” it becomes a desire.

Growing up in a day and age where social media is accessible to anyone no matter the age is already going to take a big toll on people’s appearance. An article published by Psych Central, How Does Social Media Affect Body Image, states another big issue comparison and competition, when in reality it is all fake. The article states, “Many people tend to post only their best photos, which may not be representative of their everyday appearance.” Which is true a majority of the time. Photoshop, filters, posing, and lighting all play a huge role in how a picture will look and make your body look. This leads people to start believing in unrealistic beauty standards, without realizing the pictures are not even natural.

There are “positives” that come with social media and body image as well. Recently there has been seen a lot of health and fitness inspiration. Psychcentral states, “Social media can inspire leading a healthy and active lifestyle.” Having community, support, and body positivity groups. community and support are groups for “people working through body image disorders.” A great way to find others who are like you in the sense of not loving the body you have and learning to love yourself. Body positivity groups lead to more self-love and acceptance as well. With the groups, there was a study done in 0221 where 233 females participated and found that “Participants who observed positive social media either with or without caption experienced improvements in body satisfaction.” This itself can all be seen as a positive because of the sound of it, but it comes with negatives. Health and fitness inspiration could lead to people with leaner builds being dissatisfied with their bodies because they do not eat or look like those who are more physically active. With community and support it can be a positive for the people to meet others like them, but also a negative because people tend to feed off of one another. If one person shares their disorder another person does and there is a bonding experience with the disorder. Nothing in reality is being done there is just more of an understanding and acceptance of how there is no self-love to potentially lead to self-love. Body-positive groups sound great until the wrong person gets access to the post and becomes greatly critical of their body.

Health and fitness influencers all over tend to show the real truth about bodies. Showing different people they have trained with the start and the result, showing that consistency is the key to change. For example, trainer Mikeymikebw always posts his clients after some time of being with him to show the muscle definition change with his training or meal plans. Showing the transformations and showing people the difference influences people to want to be better for themselves, not envy and feel like they are not enough. After speaking to Mikey about his clients and the social media posting he said, “The best thing I do is post my client’s spotlights because they draw in more attention for people to want to change and clients as well for myself to help people change,” As stated before this is influencing people to want to change, giving them a optimistic mindset for their future about their body and health. In another conversation, he stated, “Nobody comes to this on their own they start by being influenced mainly by social media.” Whether it is a bad or good influence it still creates a positive change in the end with people changing their lifestyles and mindsets. 

Social Media has been seen as these horrifying apps that the most recent generation has grown up with. All due to a lot of mental health struggles, cyberbullying, eating disorders, and body image dissatisfaction. All of these cases could have been true in the past, but in the most recent years, it has been shown to have a more positive impact. With more fitness influencers coming up and talking about their personal experience growing in their bodies and changing, showing expectations vs reality, and simply talking about their bodies, fitness journeys, comparison struggles, and just being raw to be more relatable to everyone else. It is believed that social media positively reinforces people’s mental health and body dysmorphia because of these things.

Social media has one of the biggest roles in body positivity movements. The study, “Bopo: Enhancing body image through body positive social media- evidence to date and research directions” talks about these movements and characteristics. Also finding ways that social media content can be beneficial for body image and lower comparison. All of this occurs because most of the body positivity posts also branch out to “a wide range of body sizes, shapes, and appearances and include messages about the importance of broadly conceptualizing beauty engaging in body acceptance and appreciation”, stated in the article. This is more than enough to show how much body positivity movements have a great impact on people on social media to stop constantly comparing themselves to bodies that are nothing like theirs.

The whole point of the content on social media is to make everyone feel included not for you to pick the worst features you think to have and compare them to others. As the study states, “ body positive content aims to disrupt the monopoly of idealized media on the visual landscape, and to encourage individuals to adopt a positive stance towards their body and appearance.” All of this is done by having more inclusiveness and less oppressive systems. Social media is not going away any time soon, we have to learn to embrace it in the most positive outlook possible because it is meant to be used in that way. That does not mean it will not have negative impacts. Perceiving it negative way with constant comparison of bodies only makes it look that way more and more causing the environment to be negative.

Another study, “I don’t need people to tell me I’m pretty on social media:” A qualitative study of social media and body image in early adolescent girls” talks about how these girls embrace the differences in bodies rather than compare themselves and beat themselves up for it. From 7th to 8th graders it was shown that even though their social media use was high the influence that social media had on them was minimal and they appreciated the differences. This could be due to, “these characteristics were nurtured by positive parental influence and a supportive school environment.” as the study stated, causing them to not want to look for a way to be better or look better, but rather appreciate themselves and everyone else around them because they do not need that attention from anywhere else. When the environment all around is better it prevents body dissatisfaction because the young adults are already satisfied. Therefore they see everything in a positive light no matter what the post is. This is not the case for everyone though. As more people every day tend to see themselves worse and worse not even proving the point of this case study.

Overall the most straightforward answer to give anyone who claims to suffer from body image from body dysmorphia would be to just get off social media and live without it, be happy on your own. That simply would not happen in today day.  Adolescents should not be spending six to eight hours of their day mindlessly scrolling; just to end up in a worse position from where they started. Posts deceive everyone, not everything seen on social media is real. Everyone posts the best pictures of themselves because it is the best version. Even though there are some things seen as positive it all depends on perception. However, we want to see something that will be seen from our point of view. Looking at mental health and the usage of social media it can be seen that social media does not have a positive outlook.

 Learning to embrace social media in the positive way that it is meant to be looked at with influencers showing the reality of bodies and having better environments showing people to perceive things differently is the way to handle it. This would be true in an idealistic world which is not the one we live in today. Even with positive environments around human beings, there is still a way to perceive yourself negatively because of the world’s negativity. Every day people find a new flaw in themselves, something new they are not satisfied with. Even if we “love ourselves” it is simply not true it is more of a facade we place for us to believe that ourselves. 

In conclusion, the complex relationship between “self-criticism” and self-body image in the context of social media and self-image creates a complicated web of influences. This has been shown to possibly worsen body dysmorphia and has a severe influence on mental health and interpersonal relationships. While social media can be beneficial in allowing people to communicate and have long-lasting relationships with different individuals in all locations of the world, It is vital to acknowledge the important implications of self-criticism due to social media. Social media can allow individuals to develop an online community that embraces inclusivity and support. Moving forward, it is important to encourage people to accept and value who they are. This becomes critical for overcoming the obstacles presented by the digital age, encouraging sincere relationships, and fostering community well-being.

References

Alsaidan, M. S., Altayar, N. S., Alshmmari, S. H., Alshammari, M. M., Alqahtani, F. T., & Mohajer, K. A. (2020). The prevalence and determinants of body dysmorphic disorder among young social media users: A cross-sectional study. Dermatology reports, 12(3), 8774. https://doi.org/10.4081/dr.2020.8774 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7772767/\

Azzaakiyyah, H. (2023). The Impact of Social Media Use on Social Interaction in Contem-porary Society. Retrieved from https://journal.literasisainsnusantara.com/index.php/tacit/article/view/33/49

best, paul, manktelow, roger, taylor, brian, Barak, A., Campbell, R., Davis, K., … Killick, C. (2014). Online communication, social media and Adolescent Wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740914000693

Burnette, C. B., Kwitowski, M. A., & Mazzeo, S. E. (2017). “I don’t need people to tell me I’m pretty on social media:” A qualitative study of social media and body image in early adolescent girls. Body Image, 23, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.09.001 

Gkotsis, G., Oellrich, A., Velupillai, S., Liakata, M., Hubbard, T. J. P., Dobson, R. J. B., & Dutta, R. (2017). Characterisation of mental health conditions in social media using informed Deep Learning. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45141#citeas

Goldfield, Gary. (2023). Reducing social media use significantly improves body image in teens, young adults. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/02/social-media-body-image

Nierengarten, M. B., M.A. (2017). Influence of social media on teenagers’ body image. Contemporary Pediatrics, 34(10), 21-22. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.rowan.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Finfluence-social-media-on-teenagers-body-image%2Fdocview%2F2017969955%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D13605

Pedersen, T. (2023). Social media and body image: What’s the link? Retrieved from https://psychcentral.com/health/how-the-media-affects-body-image#postive-effects

Rodgers, R. F., Wertheim, E. H., Paxton, S. J., Tylka, T. L., & Harriger, J. A. (2022). Bopo: Enhancing body image through body positive social media- evidence to date and research directions. Body Image, 41, 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.03.008 

Talked to Mikeymikebw in person for 45 minutes about the topic.

Posted in GymRat, Portfolio—Gymrat, Research | 3 Comments

Research-Eaglesfan

Posted on April 14, 2024 by Brandon Sigall

Pitching with a New Rule

For a very long time, pitching and hitting in Major League Baseball have been under the same rules. Pitch Clock, which was added in the 2023 season, has changed the way baseball is played.

Starting last year, Major League Baseball changed the rules of the game and implemented a pitch-clock. Pitchers now get fifteen seconds before having to pitch a ball and the batter has to be in the box before eight seconds are up or a violation is given. This stopped batters from taking their time doing their rituals or routines before stepping into the box for an at-bat. It prevented pitchers from playing around on the mound for a long amount of time and to stop trying to pick off the runners on base as much. Pitch clock has tended tended more to the casual fans who usually only watch the big games like the playoffs, most often they argued games were too long and don’t want to watch a whole nine innings like more die-hard fans.

The players have had mixed opinions as some like it while others don’t. Starting pitchers seem to be getting a groove of the pitch clock and are coming up with different strategies of how to manipulate it. Gerrit Cole and Blake Snell who are starting pitchers both had great years and won the CY Young award. These strategies include quick pitching and possibly using all the time up before pitching. According to an article titled, Pitchers are adamant, Chris Bassit commented: “I think we’re going to quickly realize,” Bassitt said, “that it’s more so going to be, ‘How can we use this against the hitters?” Chris Bassitt is a starting pitcher and thinks the pitchers have the advantage in this new rule.  

Batters and pitchers are not together on this new rule. The big sluggers seem to not like the pitch-clock and feel it is a violation of their time. In the same article, slugger and former MVP Aaron Judge commented: “I completely forgot about it until about three pitches in, and then I had to kind of check myself because I was getting into the box around eight or nine seconds.” The new rule has definitely caused a challenge for sluggers. They are used to being able to collect their minds after pitches but don’t necessarily get a chance to do so unless a timeout is called now. These sluggers are realizing starting pitchers seemingly have the upper hand in a at bat now.

Starting pitchers seem to be doing fine with the rule, however, relief pitchers have been struggling to adapt to the pitch clock. This could possibly be because they are not getting as much time on the mound as starting pitchers so it is hard to get comfortable with it. Craig Kimbrel, who is a closer, commited over three violations in just one inning in 2023. Alex Vesia has also been feeling these struggles. In the article, How are MLB’s pitchers handling the pitch clock?, Alex Vesia claimed: “It was not good,” Vesia recalled to FOX Sports this week. “I felt really, really rushed. My first spring training outing, I was nervous to go out there because I didn’t know how much the clock was going to affect me. But then after the first one, I was like, ‘OK, I can do it.’” While they are willing to adjust, it has been a hard change for relief pitchers.

Pitch-clock is clearly getting to certain pitchers and batters while also helping out others. It is a balance that these players will have to find and they will have to adjust to the new rules in place. The relief pitchers and sluggers who are struggling are willing to adjust and adapt but only time will tell how well they do it.

Major league batters who had long batting routines seem to be struggling the most out of any hitters. It was a staple in their walk up to the plate and it has now been limited because of the pitch clock. In the article titled, How the MLB pitch clock became a batter’s problem, Anna Brand wrote: “But the league’s new pitch clock rules, introduced this year to accelerate a game that can bleed into three hours, will result in another unintended casualty: quirky batter routines.” These batters who used to take so long to get in the box, are now having to find a way to shorten their routines and practice swings to get ready in time for the pitch.

We have never seen pitch-clock in the MLB before but we have still seen it. In 2022, the Triple-A and Double-A minor leagues tested out the pitch-clock and it went great. These minor leaguers were noticeably better at handling it when called up to the big leagues compared to the big league veterans who have been there for years. It worked exactly how the MLB wanted it to while also providing a few clues on how to make it better and what tweaks are needed when it was implemented the next year in the major leagues. After one year of pitch clock so far it has gone well. Most fans are now on board and most players support the rules.

Pitch-clock was never meant to hurt pitchers or batters, it always was meant to make the game better and make players better at what they do. Pitch-clock was the result of fans and the commissioner complaining the game was too long. Players have now adapted after a year and it will be interesting to see how pitch-clock will affect the 2024 year of baseball. The players seem to be in a better spot now then where they were a year ago when dealing with the new rule. Fear and nervousness, however, always come with change when change is implemented. The rules could possibly change in the future and that is a very big possibility. With any type of rule comes the possibility of change in the future. The simple solution to possibly changing pitch-clock could be for the players to ask the commissioner to change them.

While pitch clock has shown effects on certain types of hitters and pitchers, there are reasons why these effects have been put in place. The pitch clock has given numerous effects on pitchers in MLB. Starting pitchers are starting to get used to the rule and adapt. Relief pitchers are struggling more because they don’t have as much experience with the rule as starting pitchers. Pitch clock has also had its effects on batters. Sluggers are struggling as well as batters who have long routines. Whether they are batters or pitchers, the rule has had effects on the positions and they will have to find a new way to approach playing the game.

Pitch clock has had multiple effects on pitchers such as pitchers are now able to pitch faster and not have to wait as much time in between pitches. Pitchers are able to do this now because batters are required to be in the box and set before the clock reaches eight seconds. The batter is not able to slow down the pitcher. The pitcher now seems to have the advantage. In the article, Ask Hal: So who benefits most from MLB pitch clock, Hal Mccoy comments, “It seems, though, that the pitcher has the slight advantage. The time clock has disrupted batter routines like adjusting batting gloves and taking strolls outside the batter’s box after every pitch.” Batters are not able to disrupt the pitcher like they previously did and now it has flipped and the pitcher is able to disrupt the batter.

Batters have seemingly got the short end of the stick when it comes to pitch clock. They have to be ready as soon as they get in the batter’s box whereas the pitcher can take a few seconds if needed once standing on the mound. An imbalance is put in place when the pitcher has the whole fifteen seconds to pitch. The batter only gets eight of those seconds. To be fair the batter would also have to get those fifteen seconds. The batters are not getting as much time as the pitchers. In the article, Pitchers are Adamant, Zach Crizer claims: “At eight seconds, hitters are required to be in the box and alert. At that point, pitchers can fire the ball to the plate — ready or not — or simply hold it and make the batter squirm.” The batters can call time to try and be ready for the pitch, however, they only get one timeout per at bat so it isn’t as easy for the batters to get ready for a pitch.

Pitchers have been testing out ways to get better with the pitch clock and because of that, some pitchers are seemingly better with improving their tempo. Tempo is always apart of the game and one of the most key things for a pitcher. Tempo can be what gets them into a groove or just helps them relax as they have a set time for everything. That was tested going into 2023. In an article titled Breaking down the Pitch Clock, Devin Wiles wrote: “In 2022, the average time between pitches with bases empty among qualified pitchers was 18.3 seconds (this includes time between batters). Due to the implementation of the pitch timer, this number decreased to 15.4 in 2023. A similar percent change was seen with runners on base, with time between pitches decreasing from 23.2 to 19.1 seconds between ‘22 and ‘23.” For a pitchers tempo to decrease almost three whole seconds in pretty big, especially when there are no runners on base because that is when the clock is at its full length. If a pitcher has a fast tempo, it can sometimes cause serious issues for the batters they face. It at at times results in lots of strikeouts and the batters not being able to find a groove or pitch they like in an at bat.

Pitch clock has also changed the time of the game. Games have gotten shorter as a result of the pitch clock. It is more fast paced and action packed because of the new rule. The pitch clock has resulted in games being two and a half hours instead of the grueling three hours some fans don’t like. In the article titled, Baseball’s pitch clock has transformed game length, Ben Lindbergh comments: “One minute, there were still three MLB games going on; roughly six minutes later, all three were over, and baseball was done for the day.” The game length tends to be similar now across the league in a seemingly good way. It appears games are wrapping up quicker then before and for three games to get done all within the same time as each other shows how much games are being sped up.

Time limits on the pitch clock change depending on the situation and have serious potential consequences. When violations are committed, it can and has completely flipped the outcome of games and what happens on the next pitch. If no runners are on base pitchers get fifteen seconds. When runners are on, pitchers get twenty seconds to pitch. In one instance, Craig Kimbrel took too much time off the clock and received a violation which later ended up in a walk. This put a runner on base and when Alek Thomas hit a two run home run in the next at bat, it caused the damage to be much worse and tie the game up. While batters get less time to get ready, having more time can clearly end up still costing the pitcher as they might overthink the situation their in.

While the pitch clock has caused some serious changes to the game of baseball, it has overall been a good change and the fans are starting to get on board. Whether it is a casual fan or a die-hard fan, most fans agree the games were just too long to watch and would often get bored. All the routines and playing around in between the game was not satisfying to them. The pitch clock has changed that and made the game more enjoyable.

While many pitchers have already adapted to the new Pitch Clock rules, a popular objection is that they favor the offense at the expense of defensive efficiency and pitcher statistics. This is most likely because fans see that the bags have increased in size and because the pitcher has become limited in how many times he can try and pick off a runner. It makes an impression that these rules are hurting pitchers and the defense behind them.

This argument that pitchers have only gotten worse and defense isn’t as good is wrong. While there have been pitchers who have struggled adapting to the new rule, there are plenty of others who are striving and have gotten increasingly better because of the pitch clock. One of these pitchers is San Francisco Giants player Blake Snell. ESPN’s stats go on to show in 2022 before pitch clock was enabled, Snell had a 3.38 ERA. In previous years he was even higher getting in the fours at times. In 2023, when the pitch clock was introduced, Snell had a 2.25 ERA. The funny part is, Snell was resistant to these rules at first. In an ESPN article titled What players think of MLB’s new rules, Blake commented this when asked what his favorite part of the new rules was: “None that I can think of.” Someone who clearly wasn’t a fan of the changes ended up having one of his best years in his career and won Cy Young.

Gerrit Cole was dominant in years without the pitch clock. Recently however, in the two years before pitch clock was added, he had his ERA in the three’s range. According to ESPN, Last year he dropped from a 3.5 ERA to a 2.63 ERA. These changes in rules have in a way, certainly revived Cole’s career. Winning the Cy Young can allow Cole to get more money out of a contract as he has proven he has more worth than any other American League pitcher. Another pitcher who almost dropped a whole number’s worth and also won the Cy Young award. Another pitcher who benefited was Sonny Gray. A guy who wasn’t on a lot of radars before 2023 had a 2.79 ERA and became a CY Young candidate. It is clear that the pitch clock is having some sort of effect on certain pitchers. One of the things the rule does is give pitchers less time to think. The seconds counting down before the pitchers have to pitch could be leading to them just throwing instead of thinking about the pitch they should throw and the batter that is up. Cy Young is the biggest award a pitcher can win. For Snell and Cole to win it in the same year their ERA got that much better shows there is some sort of correlation to the new rules. 

While the argument is that the pitch clock is making pitchers worse, there is also something to be said about the batters. If the pitchers were truly only getting worse, then that must mean the batters have to be getting better and their averages must be going up. This is also not the case. Multiple batters have been really struggling after the new rule was added and some of those batters have been superstars that are supposed to be the team’s leaders. One of these players is Philadelphia Phillies designated hitter Kyle Schwarber. According to ESPN’s stats, Kyle had a batting average of .218 in 2022. In the next season, he batted a low .197 in 2023. A .021 decrease in batting average. If pitchers were really getting worse Kyle should’ve most likely batted a lot higher than that. 

 Nolan Arenado who is another superstar in the league also had his batting average decrease. In 2022 he batted .293, in 2023 he batted .265. These are two batters who are known to have long routines before stepping in the box. Then the pitch clock has made them shorten their routines and step in the box quickly. This is resulting in the pitcher at times manipulating the pitch clock and firing the ball as soon as the batter is in the box. The rule seems to actually benefit pitchers more than batters. The argument that it is making pitchers worse clearly does not take the batters who the pitchers are facing into account. Batters dropping their averages down that much shows the pitch clock is clearly causing more problems to batters, especially since the pitcher can now take control of an at bat in the way they want.

A part of the argument is that because the pitchers are getting worse, defense is also getting worse. This is most likely because if the pitchers’ ERAs are increasing, that must mean defense isn’t as good. Players are disagreeing with this argument. The players actually think the opposite and some are actually going on to say defense seems to be getting better with the new rule. In an article titled, Is MLB’s Pitch Clock Leading to Better Defense?, Kolten Wong commented: “I think it’s helping defensively a lot, just because you don’t have the down time to really kind of walk around.” If the players in the league are saying that defense is getting better, it is most likely getting better. Players are the ones playing the game, fans simply just watch it. They don’t actually know how it feels or what it is like. For a player to come out and say something positive about it shows fan’s arguments aren’t always valid. The pitch clock actually increases defense for a huge reason. Players do not have lots of time in between pitches now to look around, adjust their gloves, or any of the other distractions. Wong also stated, “You’re not cleaning dirt, you’re constantly back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. So, I’m a big fan of it.” With the players on their feet at all times now, pitchers have to be getting better. The players are now more focused behind the pitcher and are always ready to make plays. That shows that pitchers are not only getting worse because of the new rule but actually getting better.

References:

Brand, A. (2023, March 30). How the MLB pitch clock became a batter’s problem. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/us/mlb-pitch-clock-batters-dg/index.html

ESPN Internet Ventures. (n.d.). Blake Snell – San Francisco Giants starting pitcher. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/mlb/player/_/id/33748 

ESPN Internet Ventures. (n.d.-b). Gerrit Cole – New York Yankees starting pitcher. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/mlb/player/_/id/32081 

ESPN Internet Ventures. (n.d.-c). Kyle Schwarber – Philadelphia Phillies designated hitter. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/mlb/player/_/id/33712 

ESPN Internet Ventures. (n.d.). What players think of MLB’s new rules. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/36387464/mlb-players-react-2023-pitch-clock-rules

FOX Sports. (n.d.). How are MLB’s slowest pitchers handling the pitch clock? FOX Sports. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/mlb/how-are-mlbs-slowest-pitchers-handling-the-pitch-clock

Is MLB’s pitch clock leading to better defense? some players and coaches think so. (n.d.). https://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2023-07-06/is-mlbs-pitch-clock-leading-to-better-defense-some-players-and-coaches-think-so

Lindbergh, B. (2023b, May 1). Baseball’s pitch clock has transformed game length-and not just in the obvious way. The Ringer. https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2023/5/1/23706488/pitch-clock-2023-shorter-games-uniform-duration

Wiles, D. (2024, March 1). Breaking down the pitch clock: An analysis of baseball’s big rule change. M. https://msabr.com/2024/03/01/breaking-down-the-pitch-clock-an-analysis-of-baseballs-big-rule-change/

Writer, H. M. – C. (n.d.). Ask Hal: So who benefits most from MLB pitch clock?. dayton. https://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/ask-hal-so-who-benefits-most-from-mlb-pitch-clock/YI2NYCIC5ZBALNY3B2NXIJDMII/

Yahoo! (n.d.). Pitchers are adamant: MLB’s pitch clock will give them an edge over hitters. will spring training games prove it? Yahoo! Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/pitchers-are-adamant-mlbs-pitch-clock-will-give-them-an-edge-over-hitters-will-spring-training-games-prove-it-175136106.html

Posted in EaglesFan, Portfolio—EaglesFan, Research | Leave a comment

Causal Rewrite – Ilovemydog

Posted on April 14, 2024 by ilovemydog

The Decline of Music’s Political Voice

The main goal of music is self-expression, which is something that has constantly been echoed throughout history, including in the works belonging to musicians of the golden era of rock. For example, John Lennon’s reflections on peace and social justice. Also, like Bob Dylan and his protest anthems. Music was created to show emotion and demonstrate strong feelings. Yet, within the music industry, there has been a notable shift towards prioritizing commercial success over artist integrity. Producing music has become more about making money and less about producing a soulful song. Artists feel societal pressure to produce songs that will hit top charts from their managers and supervisors, rather than producing music they believe in. The influence of the music industry has stifled musicians, resulting in a decline of the creation and personal aspect of music as well as the creation of politically influential songs.  

The lessened autonomy of music directly stems from the music industry enforcing stricter protocols on their artists. Compared to the 1960s and 1970s, called the Golden Age of Music, artists had to sign more restrictive contracts. Signing with labels is almost 100% necessary for artists to be successful, but many of these contracts are not fair or equally as beneficial for the artist as the label.  

Not only are these contracts confusing and restricting, but many artists are young and naive, which means they are more likely to get a contract that takes advantage of them and their music. For example, LeAnn Rimes, a young country music star, had signed a contract with Curb Records at 12 years old and “might be 35 years old before she finished delivering the 21 albums, she owes the record company”, this star being one of many to this deal with the devil.  

Kevin Murray, a previous music agent states that “if you don’t sign a contract, you don’t have a career” which makes the idea of artists signing themselves to a label much more enticing, despite the strict rules and lessened personality within their music. If artists must follow certain rules or are forced to produce a certain amount of music, their concern will be less with the quality of their work but with quantity. Artists will continue to pump out superficial songs rather than taking the time and effort to make their music have meaning, even if it is simply a more personal song rather than a grand political statement.  

Artists continue to be controlled outside their contracts with their own market-driven music production choices. Artists know which songs will hit the top charts in the modern day, therefore causing them to write shallow music that does not carry any weight. This means that the need for money and fame outweighs their intrinsic motivation to write music. For example, Ed Sheeran has talked about how “It’s kind of got to a point in the music industry where everything has to be the biggest and best every time, and then better the next time.” He genuinely believes that the industry only looks for what could be the best and not what the artist or people may want.  

Similarly, artists are less likely to take any sort of political stand in their music during this modern era because of the intense “cancel culture” that follows all celebrities and artists. “Cancel culture” is a new term with the rise of excessive social media use in which celebrities are “canceled” for specific actions or overly political lyrics. and therefore, lose their media presence and following, and usually a lot of money. Because artists can be so easily “canceled” on social platforms, the idea of writing a politically or socially vulnerable piece is not as appealing as writing a guarded, easy-to-win hit. For example, Sinead O’ Connor made a lot of people upset in 1992 when she ripped up the Pope’s picture on live television. “Sinead was not getting a lot of love at the time – she was controversial,” and even with all this she decided to shock the people at SNL when she tore the picture. Causing people to turn against her even more and even “cancel” her for her political actions.  

 While one might argue that social media makes it easier for listeners to have a deeper and more personal connection to the artist and their music, online culture is so toxic that many artists are afraid to let their listeners get that close. However, artists hiding their true intentions come with a price: less impactful music that is not causing the political form it used to. According to Youth Time Magazine, artists say “One of my greatest fears as an artist is being canceled as a musician,” which makes artists more “careful” so to speak when regarding any polar stances they take, whether on their social media or within their albums.  

This brings around a general point: the lack of politically relevant and influential music contributes to a reduced effect of music on listeners’ engagement with social and political issues. While artists are stuck in their contracts and “safety nets,” people turn to social media for political ideas rather than the previously largest type of media for common people: music. Pew Research Center study highlights that a substantial portion of Americans engage in political and social activities through social media. Artists are losing their grip on listeners because of their less involved music causing people to be less engaged with today’s societal issues.  

Music is meant to be challenging and force people to think outside of their comfort zones. Hearing of political ideas through different forms of media allows people to be constantly thinking about modern-day issues from different points of view. Artists failing to produce this complex music causes people to be disengaged, indifferent, or even worse, not aware of the injustice or problem in the first place. To revive music’s role as a form of social and political activism, artists should take advantage of social media campaigns. Artists from diverse backgrounds can collaborate on projects that highlight social and political issues from a global perspective and promote this music on their many platforms available. This not only advertises their music but promotes the political reform that music once provided many. The diminishing personal and political impact of music can be attributed to the music industry’s control over the creative output of artists, leading to a reduction in the production of personal and socially influential tracks. 

References   

Anderson, M. (2018, July 11). 1. public attitudes toward political engagement on social media. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. 

Herron, I. (2022, May 25). The complicated relationship of music and cancel culture. Youth Time Magazine: News that Inspires, Updates that Matter.

Laura. (2001, September 6). Music stars complain about stringent contracts. The New York Times. 

CBS Interactive. (n.d.). Ed Sheeran says he’s breaking free from industry pressures with new album “Autumn variations”: “I don’t care what people think.” CBS News.

Guardian News and Media. (2023, July 27). “no one knew what to do”: When Sinéad O’Connor ripped up the Pope’s photo on TV – the inside story. The Guardian.

Posted in ILoveMyDog, Causal Rewrite | 1 Comment

Causal Rewrite-Eaglesfan

Posted on April 14, 2024 by Brandon Sigall

Pitching to Excellence

Pitch clock in the MLB has given numerous effects on pitchers in MLB. Starting pitchers are starting to get used to the rule and adapt. Relief pitchers are struggling more because they don’t have as much experience with the rule as starting pitchers. Pitch clock has also had its effects on batters. Sluggers are struggling as well as batters who have long routines. Whether they are batters or pitchers, the rule has had effects on the positions and they will have to find a new way to approach playing the game.

Pitch clock has had multiple effects on pitchers such as pitchers are now able to pitch faster and not have to wait as much time in between pitches. Pitchers are able to do this now because batters are required to be in the box and set before the clock reaches eight seconds. The batter is not able to slow down the pitcher. The pitcher now seems to have the advantage. In the article, Ask Hal: So who benefits most from MLB pitch clock, Hal Mccoy comments, “It seems, though, that the pitcher has the slight advantage. The time clock has disrupted batter routines like adjusting batting gloves and taking strolls outside the batter’s box after every pitch.” Batters are not able to disrupt the pitcher like they previously did and now it has flipped and the pitcher is able to disrupt the batter.

Batters have seemingly got the short end of the stick when it comes to pitch clock. They have to be ready as soon as they get in the batter’s box whereas the pitcher can take a few seconds if needed once standing on the mound. An imbalance is put in place when the pitcher has the whole fifteen seconds to pitch. The batter only gets eight of those seconds. To be fair the batter would also have to get those fifteen seconds. The batters are not getting as much time as the pitchers. In the article, Pitchers are Adamant, Zach Crizer claims: “At eight seconds, hitters are required to be in the box and alert. At that point, pitchers can fire the ball to the plate — ready or not — or simply hold it and make the batter squirm.” The batters can call time to try and be ready for the pitch, however, they only get one timeout per at bat so it isn’t as easy for the batters to get ready for a pitch.

Pitchers have been testing out ways to get better with the pitch clock and because of that, some pitchers are seemingly better with improving their tempo. Tempo is always apart of the game and one of the most key things for a pitcher. Tempo can be what gets them into a groove or just helps them relax as they have a set time for everything. That was tested going into 2023. In an article titled Breaking down the Pitch Clock, Devin Wiles wrote: “In 2022, the average time between pitches with bases empty among qualified pitchers was 18.3 seconds (this includes time between batters). Due to the implementation of the pitch timer, this number decreased to 15.4 in 2023. A similar percent change was seen with runners on base, with time between pitches decreasing from 23.2 to 19.1 seconds between ‘22 and ‘23.” For a pitchers tempo to decrease almost three whole seconds in pretty big, especially when there are no runners on base because that is when the clock is at its full length. If a pitcher has a fast tempo, it can sometimes cause serious issues for the batters they face. It at at times results in lots of strikeouts and the batters not being able to find a groove or pitch they like in an at bat.

Pitch clock has also changed the time of the game. Games have gotten shorter as a result of the pitch clock. It is more fast paced and action packed because of the new rule. The pitch clock has resulted in games being two and a half hours instead of the grueling three hours some fans don’t like. In the article titled, Baseball’s pitch clock has transformed game length, Ben Lindbergh comments: “One minute, there were still three MLB games going on; roughly six minutes later, all three were over, and baseball was done for the day.” The game length tends to be similar now across the league in a seemingly good way. It appears games are wrapping up quicker then before and for three games to get done all within the same time as each other shows how much games are being sped up.

Time limits on the pitch clock change depending on the situation and have serious potential consequences. When violations are committed, it can and has completely flipped the outcome of games and what happens on the next pitch. If no runners are on base pitchers get fifteen seconds. When runners are on, pitchers get twenty seconds to pitch. In one instance, Craig Kimbrel took too much time off the clock and received a violation which later ended up in a walk. This put a runner on base and when Alek Thomas hit a two run home run in the next at bat, it caused the damage to be much worse and tie the game up. While batters get less time to get ready, having more time can clearly end up still costing the pitcher as they might overthink the situation their in.

While the pitch clock has caused some serious changes to the game of baseball, it has overall been a good change and the fans are starting to get on board. Whether it is a casual fan or a die-hard fan, most fans agree the games were just too long to watch and would often get bored. All the routines and playing around in between the game was not satisfying to them. The pitch clock has changed that and made the game more enjoyable.

References:

Lindbergh, B. (2023b, May 1). Baseball’s pitch clock has transformed game length-and not just in the obvious way. The Ringer. https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2023/5/1/23706488/pitch-clock-2023-shorter-games-uniform-duration

Wiles, D. (2024, March 1). Breaking down the pitch clock: An analysis of baseball’s big rule change. M. https://msabr.com/2024/03/01/breaking-down-the-pitch-clock-an-analysis-of-baseballs-big-rule-change/

Writer, H. M. – C. (n.d.). Ask Hal: So who benefits most from MLB pitch clock?. dayton. https://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/ask-hal-so-who-benefits-most-from-mlb-pitch-clock/YI2NYCIC5ZBALNY3B2NXIJDMII/

Yahoo! (n.d.). Pitchers are adamant: MLB’s pitch clock will give them an edge over hitters. will spring training games prove it? Yahoo! Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/pitchers-are-adamant-mlbs-pitch-clock-will-give-them-an-edge-over-hitters-will-spring-training-games-prove-it-175136106.html

Posted in Causal Rewrite, EaglesFan, Portfolio—EaglesFan | 5 Comments

Research Paper-ravensfan

Posted on April 14, 2024 by ravensfan8

Exercising for Brain Power

Throughout time working out has been thought to only help you with physical benefits. Like staying in shape and being healthy. What if I told you there are not only physical benefits from working out but cognitive mental acuity. Leading to a healthier mindset and mental health. Working out can actually help you alter the way you approach obstacles. It also can help you from getting mental disorders.

People are probably wondering how physical activity could help you psychologically. Well there have been multiple studies over the past couple of years that show exercising is very beneficial in that aspect. When you work out there is a part in your brain called the cerebral cortex. That is the part of the brain that helps you think and learn. Working out helps strengthen that part of your brain. When that part of the brain is strengthened then it lowers the probability of getting a mental disorder. This is a great way for people who have mental disorders to try and get rid of it. Or if people who want to prevent mental disorders can lower their chances. 

There are studies that prove people who work out have a faster cognitive processing. This means that those individuals process thoughts and ideas quicker than one you do not indulge in physical activity. In the article “Reviewing on physical exercise and cognitive function” it states,“This demonstrates that participating in physical exercise programs exerts benefits in the physical and psychological spheres, and it is probable that physically active individuals have a faster cognitive processing.” Faster cognitive processing can lead to better mental health and meaningful thoughts. It is not too late to speed up your cognitive processing though. One can start working out today and  will see benefits in the next coming weeks and the long run. 

Participating in physical exercise can lower your risk of getting attacked by mental disorders. In recent analysis found physical activity has a significant increase in cognitive performance in elderly who have a cognitive deficit. This proves that exercising is an important factor in protecting cognitive decline.  

When trying to attempt to strengthen and fasten cognitive processes it depends on your workouts. Doing simple workouts is ok but not great. Try not doing lazy exercises because it could lessen your cognitive. This is because you are taking easy ways out. When doing exercises make sure it is helping you physically and mentally. If you go too hard though it could lessen your cognitive ability because it causes too much fatigue. This is only for a few minutes though. This makes cognitive processes speed up a ton. In a study made by our group, 23 healthy women aged from 60 to 70 years were submitted to 60 minutes jogging 3 times a week, and as complementary activity, they were submitted to stretching and flexibility exercises. After 6 months training, it was found an improvement in the attention, memory, agility, and in the mood pattern in 17 sedentary women. This shows that more than half of the participants had not only physical benefits but cognitive benefits. 

Working out is a great way to improve your mental. People work out to relieve stress because it is better than eating a bunch of junk food or being lazy. If one is lazy and does not have that motivation to really do anything, exercising is a great way to get out of that. It is doing something you do not want which ultimately changes your mindset. When you do not want to do something but you end up doing it. After finishing it one feels amazing. This is because working out is not something easy. This can totally change the way you start approaching opportunities in life.

People mentally are unorganized and lack a schedule in their daily life. Working out is a great way to get a person mentally straight. Meaning when you work out it is a part of your day to day schedule. So when someone is planning their schedule for the week or for the next day you have to plan your day around working out. This makes one day a lot more organized. It also helps strengthen your mind because one completes everything in the day needed to be successful. This then leads to the person being stress free. This is all by just working out for a total of forty five minutes to an hour. 

Exercising is a huge part of a steady lifestyle. Exercising also gives you an enormous sense of well being. If you cultivate a healthy exercise routine then this will improve your mental health. Working out helps people that are depressed and have anxiety make it go away or help control it. When exercising you are usually doing it for close to an hour or even more. This helps clear you mind or even expand what you are stressed about. This is great because it solves your problem and can even help find why you are stressed. “The Health Benefits of Exercise” states, “ Exercise has been proven to be effective for some people in treating and/or managing depression and anxiety.” There is a chemical in your body called cortisol which is basically “the stress hormone.” Exercise wears this chemical down which makes a person more relaxed after a workout.

In Conclusion, working out should not only be thought out to be great for your physical body but a huge part of keeping your mental health together. When people think of working out they only think about the physical part of it. People should understand that it can help you on a deeper level. Like cognitive mental acuity is also important when working out because it can improve how fast you think.

Exercising has more benefits than just working out like cognitive mental acuity. When exercising multiple times a week it will increase the way your brain processes. Most of the time people workout to either get big or lose weight. People also just work out to stay in shape and feel good. Working out is not just that though. It can actually benefit the way your brain processes.When exercising most people do not understand that it is strengthening their brain. A person goes into the gym and does a set of dumbbell curls. Most likely that person will do eight to ten reps of the three sets. Then move onto a next set of arm exercises because dumbbell curls are an arm workout specifically for the bicep. Little do they know that it strengthens their brain. This is helping the brain have a set routine and makes a person more determined in life outside of working out.

This is where the cognitive part of working out comes into play. Most of the time working out is looked at as being hard. There are tons of people who do not work out because they believe it is too difficult and are lazy. A recent study that came out, “The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that evolved most recently, and it can be exquisitely sensitive to even temporary everyday anxieties and worries. When things are going well, the prefrontal cortex acts as a control center that keeps our baser emotions and impulses in check.” The prefrontal cortex which is basically the cognitive control center that makes a person want to do difficult tasks. A great example of strengthening this part of the brain is exercising. Exercising everyday can help make this part of the brain better. The effect of this is that it can help in day to day scenarios. People do not really like doing things that they do not like and exercising can get a person to do uncomfortable things.

The brain’s cognitive processing can actually be sped up by working out. Working out can make the brain’s cognitive processing faster and sharp. Cognitive processing is, “Cognitive function or cognitive functional system is understood as the phases in the information process, such as perception, learning, memory, attention, readiness, reasoning power, and problem solving.” The effect of this is great because a person can process thoughts and ideas faster. This can also affect how aware a person can be. While running fast on a treadmill or lifting weights this is actually helping your cognitive processing by 10 times the amount if you were just going day to day. There is little to no risk to increase cognitive function by working out. Instead of surgeries or medicines, exercising is a great way because it helps one stay in shape.

On the other hand, exercising can actually help your brain stay organized. People you exercise every week understand that they need to make a mental schedule on when they are going to work out. If working out five times a week there needs to be at least forty five minutes to an hour of your day. Now a person builds around that and has a much more organized schedule. This helps anxiety and makes the brain a lot more clearer. A lot of people have anxiety because they are unorganized and do not have a routine. Exercising can benefit someone who needs the organization mentally.  

Many people think that exercising is only for physical attributes. When in reality it is not there is more than just exercising to make your body look good. It is like the saying “Look good,feel good”. When you work out you are both physically making the body better and mentally making the brain stronger. A person’s mental state is very important because it can help you live a longer and better life.There are many people who suffer from mental illnesses. Exercising can help benefit from having them. This is because exercising is beneficial for having a healthy brain.  

There is more to exercising than just physical aspects of it. It can help strengthen the brain’s cognitive function and decrease mental illness. When exercising multiple times a week it can help speed up your cognitive processing and also help you stay mentally organized.

Exercising throughout many years is viewed as a way to be in shape physically. This can be completed by lifting weights or some type of cardio. Exercising though is extremely great for your physical health but working out can actually benefit a human mentally. Even though working out is great for physical health. People could look at it in a different manner and try to get their mental strength. Many people probably argue this and believe exercising only helps people physically.  

The argument is that exercising can only benefit people in a physical way. This is definitely true to their point: working out is very beneficial to having a physically healthy lifestyle. But that is not the only thing that can be improved when working out. All it takes is a little bit of altering. One mental benefit is brain boost. Brain boost helps how fast you think. This is for things to help you process thoughts quicker and smoother. This also helps strengthen your memory. In a Waldern University study, “Studies on mice and humans indicate that cardiovascular exercise creates new brain cells, a process called neurogenesis and improves overall brain performance.” The study helps so that cardio not only improves your cardiovascular system but helps the brain. Doing workouts in a certain order can help your brain with memory. This is because having a set schedule in your workout helps the person remember what they have to accomplish during that workout. Leading to a person having better memory throughout the regular day.

Many people say that exercising does not do anything for a person’s mental health. This can be found untrue though. Something that people deal with mentally is depression and anxiety. This can be reduced by working out. There are studies that show that lifting a few weights a day or every other day can reduce your anxiety. Some people will tell you that is not true and it can not happen. But in a Waldern university study working out can actually help make someone happier. For example, “Exercise is a scientifically proven mood booster, decreasing symptoms of both depression and anxiety. Physical activity kicks up endorphin levels, the body’s famous “feel good” chemical produced by the brain and spinal cord that produces feelings of happiness and euphoria.” This informs the people that exercise releases endorphins that decrease symptoms of depression and anxiety. Even doctors recommend trying to workout before they give the patient medicines. This means why people say that exercising can not help someone’s mental health. They can get questions because there has been study behind it. There are doctors that are out there that study and recommend physical exercise to improve mental health like depression and anxiety.

Another mental benefit of exercising is decreased stress. Tons of people deal with stress throughout their lives. People try and make exercising out to be something it is not. Exercising is extremely beneficial to decrease personal stress. Even though stress is a mental issue and working out is a physical act. It can help relieve your stress and even get rid of it. By just increasing your heart rate in any workout that a person is completing. This can help reverse self-induced brain damage of stress. In a study, “which not only improve cognition and mood but improve thinking clouded by stressful events. Exercise also forces the body’s central and sympathetic nervous systems to communicate with one another, improving the body’s overall ability to respond to stress.” This shows that exercising pretty much gets the brain to start going. This then leads to the reduction of stress that a person is enduring. The argument that physical exercise only benefits humans with their physical body can be proven. That this is not true and that it can benefit the person’s mental stress that everyone deals with. 

Many people argue that exercising can only benefit humans physically. Yes physical exercise does indeed benefit physical health and is needed for day to day life. This can be proven to be not true. With the information stated above like depression and stress but reduced by working out helps further the point. This also helps people strengthen the brain with brain boost, that helps memory and cognitive function. The information given helps prove the point that exercising can benefit people mentally.

References

Walden University. (2016, November 18). 5 mental benefits of exercise. Walden University. https://www.waldenu.edu/online-bachelors-programs/bs-in-psychology/resource/five-mental-benefits-of-exercise

Pani, J., Marzi, C., Stensvold, D., Wisløff, U., Håberg, A. K., & Diciotti, S. (2022). Longitudinal study of the effect of a 5-year exercise intervention on structural brain complexity in older adults. A Generation 100 substudy. NeuroImage, 256(119226), 119226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119226

How physical activity improves mental health. (2022, December 29). Community Health of Central Washington – Community Health of Central Washington; Community Health of Central Washington. https://www.chcw.org/behavioral-health-how-physical-activity-improves-mental-health/

Antunes, H. K. M., Santos, R. F., Cassilhas, R., Santos, R. V. T., Bueno, O. F. A., & Mello, M. T. de. (2006). Exercício físico e função cognitiva: uma revisão. Revista Brasileira de Medicina Do Esporte, 12(2), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-86922006000200011

Arnsten, A., Mazure, C. M., & Sinha, R. (2012). This is Your Brain in Meltdown. Scientific American, 306(4), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0412-48

The health benefits of exercise. (n.d.). Siegeljcc.org. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://www.siegeljcc.org/blog/2022/01/24/fitness/the-health-benefits-of-exercise/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAw6yuBhDrARIsACf94RVfxkOef7Re9OWXbnKX7fVv5lXoK1jJz4yYpHwc-5ngSR9XeQq6lq4aAtY2EALw_wcB

Antunes, H. K. M., Santos, R. F., Cassilhas, R., Santos, R. V. T., Bueno, O. F. A., & Mello, M. T. de. (2006). Exercício físico e função cognitiva: uma revisão. Revista Brasileira de Medicina Do Esporte, 12(2), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-86922006000200011

Posted in Portfolio—RavensFan, RavensFan, Research | 2 Comments

Research — Holistic25

Posted on April 14, 2024 by holistic25

A Petrochemical Death


Like the food we put into our mouths, our skin also eats. The skin is the largest organ of the body, and certainly the most vulnerable entry point for toxins to wreak havoc on our system. Compounds that enter through our skin enter directly into the bloodstream whereas compounds that pass through our mouths encounter barriers in the form of digestion and absorption, decreasing the likelihood of pathogens and toxins entering our bloodstream in strenuous amounts.

Logically, the items we clothe ourselves with and sleep on must certainly impact our overall well-being. Natural materials, attributed to cotton, silk, wool, linen, and any other material that comes from mother nature without human alteration, have been highly sought after and valued since the dawn of time. The Holy Bible emphasizes natural materials like linen, its reference in Revelations 19:8 referring to linen as a symbol for righteousness reserved for God’s holy people. However, this modern era has turned in the opposite direction, relying on man-made petroleum by products, propagating a cheap and abundant environment focused on profit. This response has triggered unintended consequences in the form of petrochemicals in our environment.

Petrochemicals, defined as a vast array of chemicals obtained from petroleum or natural gas, not only exist in our environment at alarming rates, but serve as a basis for many commercial products, including the mattress and bedding industry.

When subjected to an abundance of synthetic chemicals in a concentrated area, it triggers chemical irritation leading to a host of disorders in the body. This phenomenon has been coined a term, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), which may have been laughed at decades ago, but now recognized by 22 federal agencies, encompasses a concoction of symptoms such as nausea, coughing, shortness of breath that are associated with exposure to petroleum based, synthetic materials.

Volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) are simply gasses that are discharged into the air from products, many known to cause cancer, like formaldehyde.

Flame retardants, counterintuitive to its name, provide no help because of the unintended health consequences. They contribute a host of chemicals with the purpose of slowing a fire, if present.


To date, 120,000 man-made chemicals exist in our environment. Man made chemical’s take something out of its naturally occurring state in nature and refigure compounds in elements in ways that nature would not. A host of man-made chemicals circulate in our environment, from synthetic organic chemicals (e.g. pesticides) to volatile organic chemicals (e.g. gasoline).

Unfortunately, despite many chemicals being recognized as carcinogens, they still lurk in our environment, and more importantly, in our bodies. For instance, DDT, a synthetic insecticide associated with adverse reproductive effects in humans. DDT has been banned since 1972 yet somehow according to the EPA, 99% of the population has some level of DDT in their blood to this day. Carcinogenic chemicals lurk all over our environment knowingly, but perhaps unknowingly, we find them within places we take for granted, like our clothing and mattresses.

A culprit for such toxic exposure can be found in the chemical laden bedding we rely on for comfort every night. Walter Bader, in his book, Toxic Bedrooms, puts it succinctly, “while your mattress label may tell you what your mattress is made of, it does not tell you what those materials are made from.”

Some other notable materials that make their way into our mattresses are vinyl chloride monomers, TDI’s, and boric acid.

Vinyl chloride monomers, a colorless gas, are classified as a human carcinogen, associated with liver damage, blood disorders, and breathing problems.

Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI), the prominent chemical used in the production of polyurethane foam (also known as “memory foam”), leads the industry in mattress sales. This chemical represents a labeled carcinogen, known for its respiratory problems, such as bronchitis and asthma.

After learning the origin of boric acid, it will cause a fit, and in return, will dissuade and denounce consumers from accepting its appearance in our everyday items, like mattresses and clothing. Boric acid is a roach powder, often used in mattresses. Ensuing conditions are liver, kidney, and reproductive problems.


Truth be told, manufacturers who succumb to using petrochemicals in their products know the dangers but appear clever at the end of the day. They sell their products with small tags, and large jargon filled manuals. As consumers, we have this implicit bias that gives manufacturers the benefit of the doubt. We draw ourselves to the aesthetic appeal and the product’s practical use. Increasing confusing verbiage increases the chances consumers won’t look into the source of these materials. Who has time to investigate toluene diisocyanates or vinyl chloride monomers? The petrochemical industry’s ‘dirty little secret’ creates distortion and confusion intentionally, making consumers overlook their dubious labeling practices. Taking caution to what our label reads becomes secondary, tertiary, or nonexistent when we do not know the repercussions of the materials in what we buy.

Even if you do your due diligence regarding your petrochemical of concern, your standard google search results in a barrage of information, some more threatening than others, leaving you more confused than when you started seeking information on this mysterious chemical embedded in your mattress. The term petrochemical needs to be dumbed down to a simple phrase: petrochemicals equals bad. Yes, it’s that simple.

A great fear of the health conscious, anti-chemical population is the refusal of compliance from industry. Post World War II stands out as a pivotal point in history in which man made chemicals not only reached a premium but started to be mindlessly applied to products, like furniture, that had no business being treated like such. Nor was there even a need, other than for these gargantuan companies to keep their cash flow intact to impress wall street.

In 2013, Monsanto, a prominent agrochemical company, received backlash over the safety of their most revenue generating product, roundup, which contains the controversial herbicide glyphosate. They made several proclamations to the public about the safety of glyphosate, yet in 2015, the WHO (World Health Organization) publicly classified glyphosate as a carcinogen. Despite this, the product roundup still dominates the marketplace as the prevailing product to kill weeds. Glyphosate coming to the forefront of the public as a carcinogen still didn’t ruffle the feathers of industry. Who then will seriously entertain foreign concepts like multiple chemical sensitivity, indoor air pollution and outgassing? Particularly, as it pertains to our furniture, the mattresses in which we spend one third of our lives on.

In lieu of this lived petrochemical nightmare, the average consumer must look elsewhere for reliable, independently tested products. Pesticide free natural fibers, organic backed products demand respect as the new norm. The market consists of valuable certifications, instrumental toward promoting health on a consumer and producer level. GOTS-certified is a label gaining notoriety as it pertains to mattresses, bedding, and clothing. The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) ensures organic fibers. Suitable to consumer needs, their website provides a certified suppliers database in which an individual can search for anything from clothing to footwear that possesses the GOTS certification.

In pursuit of healthful products, an emphasis should be placed on greenwashing. This term relates to an intended deceit or misrepresentation of a product alluring consumers to believe the product may be more healthful than its reality. Greenwashing serves as a reason for why consumers find it so difficult to make impactful decisions for the environment and for their health. Blanket terms such as eco-friendly, recyclable, provides energy, mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Claims don’t mean anything. Rather, the emphasis should be placed on looking for products with a GOTS certification, the gold standard certification as it relates to cotton material. This certification should persist in as many products as possible inside the home because of the evidence surrounding pollutants in our indoor environment.

Our toxic laden environment promotes cancer, disproportionately more potent in the setting of our homes. Reduced to the confines of the four walls of your room, petrochemicals become concentrated, thus being more liable to wreak havoc on human health. To understand why petrochemicals are so harmful to human health, it is necessary to understand not just what the materials are in your conventional mattress, bedding, and furniture, but what these materials are made from.

A study conducted at the Australian National University in Canberran examined the effect of natural versus synthetic bedding on children. Encompassing 863 children, an initial infant survey was conducted followed by an asthma study 7 years later. The majority of children were exposed to a single synthetic fiber type (64%) while about a third were exposed to natural-fiber bedding, and the rest had multi-synthetic fiber bedding. The results were startling: the children who slept in the multi-synthetic bedding were over two times more likely to develop wheezing in the night versus their counterparts with the natural fiber bedding.

There is an abundance of concern when it comes to an already vulnerable population such as infants, whose tolerance for toxic load is far less than that of an adult. In infancy, a child’s kidneys, your body’s main mechanism for filtrating toxins, are not yet fully developed. The introduction to an alarming number of petrochemicals when organs are still developing is nothing short of overload for this population.

Demonstrating the alarming rate at which petrochemicals in the 21st century appear in the environment, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) investigated the impact on the composition of breast milk in relation to fire retardants. In the assessment of the breast milk pertaining to mothers across the United States, it was concluded that “Milk from two study participants contained the highest levels of fire retardants ever reported in the United States, and milk from several of the mothers in EWG’s study had among the highest levels of these chemicals yet detected worldwide.” Of the 20 first time mothers accounted for, the amount of these specific flame retardants in their breast milk were 75 times greater than the average of all accounted for European studies at the time.

Further contributing to the problem is the chemical giant, Dupont. Their Teflon product is used for the purpose of being water and stain repellent, yet DuPont has been on the hook for $10.25 million for not disclosing the treacherous chemical in their product, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). DuPont’s lack of disclosure regarding PFOA was eventually discovered by The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA faulted DuPont in these accusations for not properly disclosing the company studies DuPont possessed centered around the chemical PFOA. It was found that DuPont never released a company study that showed two out of every 5 babies born to DuPont plant employees had eye and face deformities, a common side effect of PFOA.

Illustrating the consequences of an unregulated mattress industry, it takes facing the health consequences before addressing the problem. Unfortunately, that’s what happened in the “Smelly Bed” recall in January of 2002, resulting in tens of thousands of mattresses being recalled due to TCA (trichloroanisole) contamination by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This rascal of a chemical causes irritation with direct contact or inhalation, producing severe burns to the eyes and skin, accompanied with swelling of the lungs and throat. This bad batch of tens of thousands of mattresses came from polyurethane foam-based mattresses.

Not only are young children vulnerable from the standpoint of lacking the ability to filter toxins due to incomplete organ development, but also from a practicality standpoint. They breathe faster than the average adult, and they spend the majority of their day sleeping in crib mattresses. A study analyzing 20 crib mattresses sought to evaluate their potential toxic emissions. Volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) were measured at greater rates in polyurethane foam mattresses. These gasses vaporized at room temperature led to symptoms such as nose, eye, throat, and lung irritation. As well, defects of the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys have been associated with VOC’s.


With all this evidence in opposition to petroleum based products, what can be offered as a solution? A review in the International Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine offers insight into the situation. They chronicle a multitude of evidence through epidemiological studies, longitudinal studies, and cross-sectional studies as it pertains to bedding and asthma. It is abundantly evident that synthetic fibers detract from respiratory health. Feather, a natural material, is comparatively stacked up against that of synthetic beddings and not only doesn’t induce asthma like qualities such as wheezing but offers evidence that it is supportive against asthma.

Astutely noted by Crane and Siebers, there are few publications as it relates to studying asthma in infancy and bedding. The data is scarce, but it’s promising. The first to demonstrate feather bedding material posing as a protective effect was Nafstad and company. They initiated a cohort study analyzing the effect of the type of duvet children were exposed to at 6, 12, and 24 months. The conclusion was by age 2 and 4, the children exposed to feather duvets were inversely associated with asthma and other respiratory problems.

Another study out of New Zealand examined whether feather duvets and feather pillowcases were effective in promoting respiratory health. At age 2, this cohort study monitored infants wheezing rates. At age 4, the impact of using feather duvets and pillowcases was studied as it related to the diagnosis of asthma. There were over 500 children monitored, and the minority of the children were sleeping with feather duvets and pillowcases. At both progress markers at 2 and 4 years old, it was found there was a statistical significance in the infants who used feather pillowcases and duvets in preventing wheezing and asthma compared to the infants who were not using feather bedding.

Within the confines of our homes, a consumer’s decision makes all the difference in procuring a restful and healthful sleep. Certainly, industry’s standards, especially in the U.S.A., don’t purposefully tell you what the material of your bedding is made from, but an educated consumer adopts a reductionist mindset. Petroleum based products are harmful to health, while natural fibers at its worst don’t trigger wheezing or asthma, and at its best promote respiratory function throughout a night’s rest. The polyurethane foam industry continually adheres to cheapness and convenience at the expense of human health. They accrue sales at the end of the day, but ultimately sell us short in the safety of their products.

Nothing short of disturbing, the memory foam mattress industry continues to dodge concerns about the safety of their own products. Recently, in 2021, a class action lawsuit occurred as the safety of Zinus’ products came into question. Specifically, fiberglass, an invasive material in their ‘bed in the box’ product, deserves second thought. This culprit known as fiberglass possesses a plastic texture and appearance coupled with the strength of glass deemed for its fire-resistant capabilities. Remiss in its practicality for bed usage during its manufacturing process, the class action lawsuit claimed families spent an average of $15,000 to remove all fiberglass. A victim described the experience as having “dust settle everywhere… only it was glass” with complications of itching and coughing, ultimately the side effects becoming so debilitating that the family lived in a hotel until all fiberglass was removed from the home. Another family spent “tens of thousands tens of dollars in property damage and spent more than $20,000 for professional remediation services after buying a Zinus memory foam mattress.” As it stands, Zinus’ product, their queen sized ‘Green Tea’ memory foam mattress, attracts more than 130,000 viewers, rated at 4.4 out of 5 stars, and trades at approximately $310 on Amazon.

Rather than take onus regarding the health concerns of their product(s), Zinus deflected blame on the consumers. Zinus believes consumers time after time damage the outer cover without heeding to the products labels, leading to fiberglass disbursement in the home. Furthermore, a statement from Zinus reads “The material that we use to comply with fire safety regulations is standard in the mattress industry, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission has found that this material is not considered hazardous.” To self purport this toxic material as standard across the industry epitomizes the fallacy in a world with an increasing reliance on low-cost material.

Unfortunately, petroleum products don’t follow the sentiment of our legal system, ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Zinus defends their use of fiberglass and other petroleum based products in this disparaging manner. Since memory foam has become the staple of the industry in the modern era, the 2015 report published by the EPA clearly needs more light drawn to it. The 800 page report documents how flame retardants in polyurethane foams derails human health, leading to a slew of symptoms such as those associated with the respiratory system, immune system, eyes and skin. To the inconvenience of the industry’s best selling polyurethane foam, the EPA’s report found flame retardants increase the odds of developing cancer and neurobehavioral disorders, like autism. The phenomenon of adolescents developing neurobehavioral disorders at alarming rates remains prevalent in modern society, and a vast majority of the burden can be placed on petrochemicals and industry’s increasing reliance on them to make a wider margin of profit. Undoubtedly, the usage of petrochemicals in our bedding necessitates a more serious approach in lieu of the EPA’s report nearly a decade ago.

A miniscule 5-10% of cancers come from genetics, thus our environment cannot be overlooked. Our environment remains the difference between health and disease. Our indoor environment is 10-100 times more toxic than the air outside, leading to more chemicals coming into contact with our skin and lungs. A natural solution to this toxic indoor environment comes in the form of substituting a memory foam mattress for a natural rubber organic mattress. Walter Bader, author of Toxic Bedrooms, attests that a natural rubber organic mattress produces 95% less chemical emissions than its counterpart, memory foam. Resorting to material that has roamed our world since the dawn of time, rubber comes from the sap of trees, and has advantageous properties such as elasticity and strength. Unfortunately, most people consume an industrialized, highly processed version, but let it be known that natural rubber exists in a non-toxic form from the very trees of this earth.

Proponents of petrochemical based items, such as memory foam mattresses argue there’s no adequate alternative. This myth couldn’t possibly be further from the truth. In addition to the natural rubber organic mattress previously mentioned, options include pure organic wool and certified organic cotton. Independent third party testing ensures delivery on the promise of top tier ingredients. These methods also stray from dyes, which when added to a product in a synthetic manner, promote symptoms such as difficulty breathing and burning sensations to the eyes and throat.

Approximately 2,000 new chemicals get introduced to our environment on a yearly basis, yet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews only a minimum of 20 of those chemicals at a time, having a seven year deadline, resulting in industry having a cushion of five years to account for banning carcinogenic chemicals. Given the extensive timeframe the EPA has to evaluate such chemicals and make proper adjustments, this entire process exudes superficialness. No urgency in the process, and in the meanwhile, our livers are asked to detoxify at rates they have never before, straying away from homeostatic principles the human body thrives on.

This generation marks the first of its kind, one that will not outlive its previous generation. For quite some time now, scientists have elongated life spans through chemical means, but even the brightest minds cannot outsmart biology. Man made interventions take us only so far.

Our current system puts band aids on bullet holes. Symptomatic people get ignored. Interventions, guidelines, and policies only surface at the sight of an emergency. Our toxic laden world has become so normalized that it has drowned out the noise of our own common sense. Feeble leadership at the helm of petrochemical industries has promoted distrust and confusion, straying away from core business tenets such as integrity, responsibility, and transparency. Malfeasance will always concern the hierarchies, creating the need to vote with our dollar on an individual basis to enact change to move away from petrochemicals and back to our natural environment consisting of natural material, free from pesticide usage.

References

Association, A. L. (2023). Volatile organic compounds. Retrieved Feb 27, 2024, from https://www.lung.org/clean-air/indoor-air/indoor-air-pollutants/volatile-organic-compounds

Australian Government. Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM). Retrieved Feb 27, 2024, from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/npi/substances/fact-sheets/vinyl-chloride-monomer-vcm

Bader, W. (2010). Toxic bedrooms: Your guide to a safe night’s sleep SCB Distributors.

Beckett, E. M., Miller, E., Unice, K., Russman, E., & Pierce, J. S. (2022). Evaluation of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from memory foam mattresses and potential implications for consumer health risk – ScienceDirect. Chemosphere, Volume 303 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134945

Boor, B. E., Järnström, H., Novoselac, A., & Xu, Y. (2014). Infant exposure to emissions of volatile organic compounds from crib mattresses. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(6), 3541-3549. doi:10.1021/es405625q

Doost, A. (2021). Texas families warn of possible bed-in-the-box mattress risks; class action lawsuit filed.https://www.kxan.com/investigations/texas-families-warn-of-possible-bed-in-the-box-mattress-risks-class-action-lawsuit-filed/

EPA. (2009). Publication no. 13: Man-made chemicals in private drinking water wells. Retrieved Feb 27, 2024, from https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Departments-and-Agencies/DPH/dph/environmental_health/pdf/13ManMadeChemicalsinPDWWpdf.pdf

Fiberglass – A material guide | types, benefits, uses. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.vpcfiberglass.com/resources/why-fiberglass/

Gibson, K. Amazon’s bestselling mattress is a health hazard, lawsuit claims – CBS news. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-zinus-mattress-fiberglass-health-hazard-lawsuit/

Home – GOTS. Retrieved Feb 27, 2024, from https://global-standard.org/

Lugavere, M. (2024). 370: How to detox common environmental pollutants that cause inflammation and disease | stephen cabral, ND

Matsui, E. C., Abramson, S. L., & Sandel, M. T. (2016). Indoor environmental control practices and asthma management. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162589. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2589

Petrochemical | industrial, manufacturing & energy applications | britannica. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.britannica.com/science/petrochemical

Revelation 19:8 – verse-by-verse bible commentary. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.studylight.org/commentary/revelation/19-8.html

Schreder, E. Whatcom watch online – pollution in people: Toxic chemicals in the bodies of washington residents. Retrieved Mar 9, 2024, from https://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=714

Scialla, M. (2016). It could take centuries for EPA to test all the unregulated chemicals under a new landmark bill. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/it-could-take-centuries-for-epa-to-test-all-the-unregulated-chemicals-under-a-new-landmark-bill

Siebers, R. W., & Crane, J. (2011). Does bedding affect the airway and allergy?: International journal of occupational & environmental medicine. International Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 2(2), 65-75. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=59652038&site=ehost-live

Sumithra, G., Reddy, R., Kumar, G., Ojha, S., Jayachandra, G., & Raghavendra, G. (2023). Review on composite classification, manufacturing, and applications – ScienceDirect. Materialstoday, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.04.637

Tighe, D. (2023). Topic: Product recalls in the united states. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.statista.com/topics/3798/product-recalls-in-the-united-states/

TMHS 455: The surprising truth about cancer, carcinogens, & community – with guest dr. christian gonzalez (2021). (The Model Health Show Trans.).

Tran, V. V., Park, D., & Lee, Y. (2020). Indoor air pollution, related human diseases, and recent trends in the control and improvement of indoor air quality. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8), 2927. doi:10.3390/ijerph17082927

Vandenberg, L. N., Rayasam, S. D. G., Axelrad, D. A., Bennett, D. H., Brown, P., Carignan, C. C., et al. (2023). Addressing systemic problems with exposure assessments to protect the public’s health. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 21(Suppl 1), 121. doi:10.1186/s12940-022-00917-0

Zucco, G. M., & Doty, R. L. (2021). Multiple chemical sensitivity. Brain Sciences, 12(1), 46. doi:10.3390/brainsci12010046

Zwarensteyn, J. (2021). Toxic materials in foam mattresses? are we safe? – sleep advisor. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.sleepadvisor.org/toxic-materials-in-foam-mattresses/

Posted in Holistic, Portfolio—Holistic | 1 Comment

Research paper-doglover

Posted on April 14, 2024 by doglover7025

The social decline of Instagram

We all agree that hate speech on social media is toxic, abusive, and very dangerous to sensitive youth. But legislating what qualifies as hate speech is a thorny problem, and free-speech advocates have a clear constitutional right to insist that their words are protected. This essay will provide a clear set of rules for the online community to recognize the characteristics of hate speech so it and its practitioners can be lawfully banned from social media.

Unfortunately, we all have different viewpoints on what we consider hate. “A social approval-based theory of online hate suggests that the motivations and gratifications of those who post hate messages are not primarily to antagonize their ostensible victims.” This is where it becomes tricky, trying to distinguish the difference between accidental hate based on viewpoints, and actual hate, like hate speech. 

Hate speech is a different type of hate and sometimes can get tangled up with inadvertent hate, or just an overly sensitive reader.  Hate speech is an “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice based on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds”. The three definitions are different. Let’s take a look at hate speech on social media. Celebrity Kanye West was banned from Instagram in 2022 for 24hrs when he was using hate speech towards celebrity Trevor Noah. Kanye posted a photo of Trever Noah’s face with the caption being racist lyrics. Another example was Leslie Jones. In July 2016, Jones was receiving ongoing hate on Twitter. They posted unexplainable tweets under her name, made racist comments, and set pornographic images. Why is that?- All because she was set to act in the new Ghostbusters movie at the time. Yes, the British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, who started the hate towards her on Twitter, was banned permanently from Twitter. This issue is viewpoints and opinions. Just because you don’t agree with something someone says doesn’t mean you have to publicly tear them down on social media, to the point of deleting your account. Inadvertent offense is being offensive without intending to do so. It can occur due to differences, whether it be cultural, personal experiences or just the simple lack of awareness. 

Hate speech is a deeper form of cyberbullying. But cyberbullying is still as intense. 

Cyberbullying is unfortunately a very “popular” thing in the world. “Cyberbullying is the use of technology to harass, threaten, embarrass, or target another person”. As a result of this, the victims of CB face many issues including, bad mental health, embarrassment, and low emotional stress. When doing research on the consequences of cyberbullying, the key word that shows up in a lot of search results is “may”. “The person may get suspended from school”…. “The person may face serious penalties”. It shouldn’t be “may” it should be they will. “They will face serious penalties”… “they will get suspended from school”. Websites like instagram or X, let too many people off the hook and give all these people too many chances. Again, yes they can be reported, but it seems as though all those sites will do is just ban your account, and that person can make another one. Not to mention, who is checking these accounts, specifically who is running that department. Is someone sitting in front of a screen, declining or accepting who they want banned. Maybe, who knows. But, These cyberbullies keep attacking because the chances of penalties are 50/50. “In a quest to make Instagram a kinder, gentler place, the founders had borrowed from Facebook an AI tool known as DeepText, which was designed to understand and interpret the language people were using on the platform. The next year, they trained it to find and block offensive comments, including racial slurs. By mid-2018, they were using it to find bullying in comments, too. A week after Mosseri took over in October, Instagram announced it wouldn’t just use AI to search for bullying in remarks tacked below users’ posts; it would start using machines to spot bullying in photos, meaning that AI would also analyze the posts themselves.”We already know how unreliable AI can be at times, and we also know that It also can be incorrect. So if they are using Ai to ban users who are being offensive/using hate speech, this technology needs to be very specific and can correctly filter out users who are showing hate towards others.

Even though there are many positive effects of social media, there are negative effects as well and this negative effect seems to be a very popular issue around the world. That is why I think that hate should be banned from social media. Freedom of speech is a topic in the social media field. Some people say things that they shouldn’t on social media, but then defend themselves by saying “but I can say that I have freedom of speech”. No you can’t, because of the laws. Social media laws and guidelines are different from each other. These platforms have their own conditions and terms/ guidlines. The “freedom of speech” card can’t be used because of these laws and they can and will ban you. But the issue is, the people keep making different accounts and will most definitely find a way to come back and hate on you and tear you down. Because of these laws, people can’t get into trouble that’s legal oriented, but they can still lose their jobs if their employer sees this hate,  or lose  “brand deals’ ‘ if they’re an influencer. Users can tear other users down, and can lead to deeper issues. 

Let’s take a look at an example. 16 year old teen queer artist dies by suicide after reading hate comments. Her name Prashna was a social media influencer, specifically a makeup artist. In one of the instagram reels she posted, she received a numerous amount of hate. “the artist’s comment section was flooded with over 4,000 homophobic remarks which abetted them to die by suicide. The artist had over 16,500 followers on their Instagram handle,’glam it up with pranshu’.”. This influencer got so much hatespeech from other users that she felt the need to commit death by suicide. Another example is on TikTok in 2023. A little kid, Kevin Gabor struggles with Osteogenesis imperfecta and was attacked on TikTok. He was receiving so much hate online. “”You know I can’t play, I can’t run. I can’t hang out with friends outside. I can’t do a bunch of stuff,” Kevin pleads. “Because I could break something and I have an online community so that I can share and have friends with and you’re trying to take that away from me.” 

Additionally, hate speech and discriminatory language have no place on social media platforms. Implementing stricter repercussions for users who engage in hate speech could help create a safer online environment. This could include suspending accounts, removing offensive content. “It means that a small group of private companies have a lot of power over what speech gets heard and what speech doesn’t,” Nott says. “While that might not violate the First Amendment, it is something that people who value free speech should pay attention to [in the future].” 

As mentioned before,  social media can be a very positive outlet and hold many beneficial features. But, it also holds negative features and with that holds many issues, specifically cyberbullying and hate. Social media sites like instagram, need to hold more of the people who hate accountable. If there are no repercussions involved and nobody faces consequences, these people will continue to keep hating, which is the root to why so many people hate social media. The impact of being mean to someone can be intense. It can lead to feelings of sadness, or anger. It can lead to a low self-confidence, and behavioral responses. The people that are hateful just get to hide behind a screen for example, being mean and negative, but don’t have to deal with the negative effects. That’s the issue with social media. Some random person can sit in the room behind a screen and tear another person down, but does not receive any negative reprcussions. 

Freedom of speech is something that people use to their defense when being offensive to other users.  The term “Freedom of speech”, is used as a lot of peoples defense when being offensive on social media. They make hateful comments about one’s race, sexual orientation, or opinions but then can “win” by saying “I can say what I want… freedom of speech”. Freedom of speech, or the “First Amendment” is “Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction”. Banning users based on what they say raises concern about the freedom of your expression. But in all actuality, freedom of speech doesn’t apply to social media. Sites like instagram have their own set of first amendment rules. This means that Instagram and other social media sites  can moderate the posts without violating their rights.

Determining what is considered harm can be challenging. Hate speech might not be physical, but can be mentally harming and can lead to violence to a specific person or group. For example, take a look at “John Stuarts: Mill Harm example”, he states that “people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else.”. Yes, that’s true but there is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech. 

Another rebuttal thrown out is “effective level of banning ”. Yes, Permanently banning hateful users does not necessarily solve the underlying issues, and we should be addressing  the causes of hate speech with lessons, and community, and links + articles. But, It’s hard at times to try to change someone’s mind or opinions+views. Especially if a person has a strong view on their opinion, you’re not changing anything. Putting out an article won’t lead that person to not do it, honestly, it might make them do something more hurtful. With the boldness levels of people on  social media, some people will say whatever they want knowing that they might not ever face that person. So, banning the users will help make the social media environment more clearer. It’s now the person’s issue as to whether they want to make themself more nicer. 

According to Instagrams guidelines, ““We remove content that contains credible threats or hate speech, content that targets private individuals to degrade or shame them, personal information meant to blackmail or harass someone, and repeated unwanted messages. We do generally allow stronger conversation around people who are featured in the news or have a large public audience due to their profession or chosen activities.“ ”. This rule goes against the first amendment , which is beneficial because you shouldn’t be allowed to just say anything because you have the right too. 

Another rebuttal thrown out is “effective level of banning ”. Yes, Permanently banning hateful users does not necessarily solve the underlying issues, and we should be addressing  the causes of hate speech with lessons, and community, and links + articles. But, It’s hard at times to try to change someone’s mind or opinions+views. Especially if a person has a strong view on their opinion, you’re not changing anything. Putting out an article won’t lead that person to not do it, honestly, it might make them do something more hurtful. With the boldness levels of people on  social media, some people will say whatever they want knowing that they might not ever face that person. So, banning the users will help make the social media environment more clearer. It’s now the person’s issue as to whether they want to make themself more nicer. 

An important rebuttal that could be thrown at this argument is “Possibility for Unfair Punishment”. Banning users based on the number of complaints without an investigation into each case could result in unfair punishment. Innocent users might be penalized, while actual users could go unnoticed if they have fewer complaints against them. With this mechanism that would be added, it would be very selective of who is banned. We would not only look at the number of complaints lodged against them, but the content of what they’re posting that was flagged. So unfair punishment wouldn’t happen because of the selective banning process. 

While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, advocating for freedom of speech without considering its potential risks or lack of research, is a big issue. Freedom of speech does not combine with  It’s the reason why so many people use hate speech on social media. There is a very thin difference between freedom of speech and hate speech that people tend to defend their hate with “Freedom of speech, I can say what I want etc.). If Instagram contained  a mechanism for banning users who are mean to other users if the number of complaints lodged against them is credible and sufficient would help the social media community overall. The amount of hate speech and negativity would decrease.

In conclusion, If we find a way to ban hateful users permanently, if the evidence is credible and sufficient, we might finally be able to positively use social media again. Everybody, no matter who, should be able to go on social media and post what makes them happy. The hateful people that tear others down negatively affect so many people and it makes people feel like they can’t share what they want. People tend to have different viewpoints on what being considered “mean” is. But nonetheless, Every online SM platform should be compelled to abide by the same rules of behavior. Doing this would not only improve the people but would improve the app. 

References:

Steinmetz, K. (2019, July 8). Inside Instagram’s ambitious plan to fight bullying. Time. https://time.com/5619999/instagram-mosseri-bullying-artificial-intelligence/ 

Miller, J. (2020, April 21). Can Hate Be Banned From Social Media? New Jersey State Bar Foundation. https://njsbf.org/2020/04/21/can-hate-be-banned-from-social-media/

          Walther, J. B. (2022). Social Media and Online Hate. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45.        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.12.010

Wetzel, J. (2023, August 29). Disabled child’s desperate plea to stop online trolls brought out the best in Social Media. Upworthy. https://www.upworthy.com/childs-plea-to-trolls-brought-out-social-media-best 

ScienceDirect.com | Science, health and medical journals, full text articles and books. (n.d.). https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271506/1-s2.0-S0957417420X00157/1-s2.0-S0957417420305492/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEF8aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQCCC4x3aRO2y9zm201086rcZVoZRwjWNOw3aN6D5tRPeAIhAJimY

Stephenson, A., Cohen, G. A., Beller, Y., & Greenbaum, D. (2021). Suicide Prevention Technologies and social media platforms: legal, social and ethical implications. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4194066

Asfar, N. A. (2022). A Literature Review of Hate Speech: Forensic Linguistics Study. http://www.ejournal.warmadewa.ac.id. https://doi.org/10.55637/ijfl.3.2.6333.109-114

Posted in DogLover, Portfolio—DogLover, Research | 1 Comment

Research Paper – temporal

Posted on April 14, 2024 by temporal111

Elitist language

Language is a uniquely human trait, and is fundamental in how we communicate and express ourselves. Language develops naturally and varies vastly from culture to culture. Despite this, people will oftentimes tell others that they’re speaking incorrectly, or that their language is inappropriate or impure. Although this can be true if the other’s syntax is completely unintelligible, many times, the complaint in reality stems from prejudice, as a means of ostracizing someone based on their language. Many attempts to purify,  sensor, or label certain language as improper are caused by the wealthy upper ruling classes rejecting the language of the poorer class.

An important distinction of inappropriateness of language is when it’s within a culture, and when it’s developed and then established by cultures to other cultures. There are going to be natural taboos within a culture or language that people generally agree on, and that’s not usually a problem. The problem comes when another culture or group of people take power over another and enforce their own language rules and taboos that don’t necessarily align with the culture they are enforcing it on. This essay will only focus on cases of the ruling class imposing unnecessary rules of language onto the common people, because that is the more immoral and arbitrary of the two.

In order to proceed, the difference between ruling class languages and more common use languages must be defined. First of all, all languages will follow similar rules that can be observed, but will develop and change over time on a spectrum as societies change and develop. When I say on a spectrum, I mean that there wasn’t just no English, and then now there’s English because we decided it. What we call english is just the modern form of what was once a germanic language, as it originated from the german anglo saxon people. Also, even though people across a certain country nowadays will speak the same language as someone on the other side of the country, that doesn’t make it exactly the same. Each person has their own subtle differences in the way that they speak, however, we call it the same language when you can understand the person you’re talking to enough because there are enough similarities. This is all claimed and supported by Noam Chomsky in his interview with Al Page. So now we have established that language will form a gradient over time and space. Another key preliminary fact is that cultures will wage war and conquer other peoples throughout history, who most definitely spoke a different language. Once the ruling class is set into place, they typically do everything they can to keep their power, and ostracize the poor. Now, they will do this in many different ways, including propaganda, strategic law setting, and sometimes just straight up violence. However, language is a more subtle way that it is done, and this is because language comes so naturally that we won’t even think about most of the time. This isn’t just medieval history either, it happens in modern times. In the present day United states, most of the power is concentrated towards wealthy, white males, and their language. Think about how the language of the indigenous people is almost non existent now, because they were wiped out by the conquering class, and how to get by with most things in the united states, you have to speak english, and spanish isn’t given nearly as much importance, despite the fact that 12.5% of the population speak it (lyons, 2019).

It is important to note that sometimes, the exclusion of language is not always 100% tactical government propaganda. People might have a natural tendency to see other languages as stranger than their own negative one, because they are not used to it. So the exclusion of other languages is not just tactical, it can also be fueled by an emotional distaste for things that are different. Any particular group can have this sort of distaste and ignorance to other languages, but it’s the preferences of the upper class that is put into the mainstream.

Given the framework and abstract of how the ruling class will use strategies including language to propagandize the poor, here are some concrete examples that all fit the framework of banning certain phrases or parts of language as a way to other people.

One may try to argue that language cannot be controlled by elites because there is no concrete case of that happening. Well, there are many cases in which it happened, take the catholic church for example. For example; before the protestant reformation, the bible was not translated from Latin to the common European languages, such as German, Italian, etc. This was because only the upper class priests spoke Latin, and thus, only they could read and interpret what the bible said. Therefore, because at this time the church was for the most part in charge of society, the bible determined the rules and morals of society, which could then only be determined by the priests. For example, the bible states that homosexuality is a sin, which seems extremely irrational, especially in modern times. But, how could the people at the time know whether or not that’s what the bible actually said, or if a priest just wrote that in there himself? There would be no way of knowing, and so homosexuals would be prosecuted without any way of defending themselves. The Latin language was considered more proper than the language of the common people, and so the elites were able to discriminate against them.

It’s also simply a fruitless endeavor to try to control a language in the first place. Many will make the argument that some language control of this sort is necessary in order to keep a language “pure”. However, this idea is disputed by MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, who revolutionized the field of linguistics at a young age. He was once asked in an interview what, say, the French theorists mean when they say they want to keep the French language pure, which would then entail a higher status to those who use the “pure” form of the language as opposed to those who don’t. “That doesn’t mean anything” was his response. Language is extremely subject to change and evolution. Chomsky goes on to explain that in fact, because, for most of history, and even in many places today, people speak a different language than the people in the next village over, the concept of a national language is a modern phenomenon. In addition, because language will naturally evolve anyway, there is no point in trying to control it, and there is especially no point in trying to purify it considering some forms of language to be “impure”, whatever that means, based on things like social class. For instance, if language is constantly subject to change from location to location, then which one is “correct?” due to there not being any meaningful measure of how much better, or more pure a language would be, it would be a completely arbitrary decision in that regard.

An example of how the concept of unnecessarily controlling language is specifically targeted towards the common man is through the etymology of words that used to mean average. Oftentimes, words that at one time meant average or common now hold negative connotations. For example, take the word  “vulgar.” People might  know the word vulgar to mean disgusting or vile, and it certainly does hold that connotation, but its original meaning was simply “common.” Because the word originally meant common,  it was then associated with the common people. And because the common people were associated with being vile, the word vulgar then developed that connotation as well. This then means that calling a word vulgar is really just associating it with common people in a negative way, which is complete elitist bullshit.

Another huge example of unnecessary language prohibition is the idea of curse words, which are words that are deemed to be inappropriate in certain circumstances. By inappropriate, I mean that if someone were to say one of these words in any general situation, it would be considered rude or inappropriate. Now, that would not be true in a very informal setting, such as a local bar, or just friends hanging in the privacy of their own home, but it would hold in most circumstances. Some of these words include but are not limited to: “fuck”, “shit”, “piss” and “ass.” One might notice that these words can all be expressed using words that have the same meaning, but for some reason are not considered to be inappropriate. Examples of these words, respectively, are: “intercourse”, “feces”, “urine”, and “gluteus maximus.” It seems redundant to frown upon “shit”, but “feces” is relatively formal. One could argue that it is common to have words with the same denotation but a different connotation, where the connotation of one version of the word is appropriate in some circumstances and not others, which is certainly true for some words, it would be a result of inner cultural language barriers rather than an arbitrary rule being enforced by a ruling class. The origin of some of these words has to do with the merging of languages throughout history, as well as the role that language plays in social classes. An example, and particularly the instance for how the word “shit” was made into a curse word, was the battle of hastings.

This battle took place in 1066 between the Normans (norse/french people) and the Anglo Saxons (the ancestors of the modern day english), and the Normans were the successors. As a result, the Normans were the ruling class, and the anglo saxons were the poor working class. (Vizarra, 2019). Now, due to the merging of these cultures, the languages also merged, changing the English language. An example of such change is the words used for food. The working class referred to animals they worked with using english words (i.e. cow and pig), whereas the elites referred to the animals that were served to them in Norman (beef and pork). 

The english words were considered less refined, and sometimes, so bad, that they developed into curse words; like the word shit for example, of Anglo Saxon origin (Dent, 2018). Now, you could argue that curse words are the result of natural language taboos of a culture enacted upon itself, and while that may be true for some special cases, in the case of the battle of hastings, and many others, it’s once again the result of a conquering class enforcing their language norms onto another culture.  Now an argument for the making of swear words like “shit” is that these words actually are bad and you shouldn’t say them. Well, why not? Who decides they are bad? The reason why they are considered inappropriate varies, but it usually is from prior elite individuals deciding they are bad arbitrarily to ostracize the poor.

Interestingly enough, this is also the reason why we associate the French language with fanciness and attribute it to be upper class. The French normans were the ruling class over the English , and so were given that connotation at the time, which stuck with people over time. The same thing can be said about English accents, which is said to sound more proper and refined to Americans, because they were once the rulers of the American colonies.

It’s not just curse words that this happens too. The word “ain’t” used to be considered proper, believe it or not. But then, “ain’t became associated with lower-class characters” (Thesaurus.com, 2019). And now, ain’t is associated with the lower class, improper grammar, and isn’t really even considered to be a word. However, some might notice that it’s literally just a contraction of “am not”. This just goes to show that time after time, elites will consider certain forms of language (typically that of the poorer class) to be improper for no good reason whatsoever, and that these norms are carried throughout time, usually unquestioned. It seems as though the reason why it’s done is to subtly discriminate against people of the lower classes from the upper class.

Curse words tend to form around taboo subjects. As (Orlando 2023) put it, “profanity can also come from language involving sex and sexual acts, as well as bodily functions.” They also tend to evolve around sacred subjects such as religion (for example, it’s generally inappropriate to exclaim “Jesus Christ! As an interjection). This means that they do form naturally, it’s not all just the doing of elitism, however, elitism clearly exasperates it and creates more ideas of purity in language than necessary.

An important aspect of language is people’s names, and believe it or not, people have also been oppressed on the basis of their names. There are many cases in which people of varying ethnic backgrounds moved to a new country and have had to change their name to something that the people of said country are more accustomed to. This is the case for many asian americans, many have had to change their names to be more “americanized” in order to fit in. However, your name, and especially your family name which could have been around for generations, is an important part of your culture and identity. As Sam Louie MA, LMHC, CSAT  explains his experience, “There were those who kept their ethnic names but it came with risk—the risk of being teased by other kids for being different.”

Another horrific case of name oppression is when slaves were imported to the United States in the 17 and 18 hundreds. The ruling class, or the slave owners, did not wish to accustom themselves to and learn African names, so instead they forced their slaves to change their names to more traditional european-american names, “Africans taken to various parts of the world not only lost families but lost their identity mainly because their names were taken from them” (Johnson, 2018). This was nothing short of a cruel erasing of one’s identity. This has been showcased in tv shows like roots and other films about slavery. 

A more modern case of language oppression is with the unacceptance of gender neutral pronouns, such as they/them. Although this may seem like a modern phenomenon, pronouns have been changing all throughout history. Some people claim that it’s improper grammar to have gender neutral pronouns, but really oftentimes, they only make this argument out of bigotry or transphobia. It’s not improper grammar because plenty of languages have different systems of pronouns that work differently than english. From people claiming that gender neutral pronouns are improper language, we have another example of people who are using language to oppress gender neutral people who simply want to be referred to with a pronoun that makes them feel more comfortable.

Moreover, and combining the ideas of gender neutrality and using names for people that they don’t want to be used for themselves, there is also the concept known as deadnaming, where people refuse to use the new name that someone gender neutral wants to be called. People refusing to refer to someone by their new name is another form of using language to be oppressive, and also goes to show, as well as the previous example, that oppression of language still happens today, it’s not just a thing that happened in the catholic church in the middle ages.

Oftentimes, the ruling class has an agenda to hide, and they use language to hide certain ways of asking questions. For example, when a media outlet asks a political question, it is often framed in a certain way to exclude other viewpoints, a loaded question, if you will.

One of the most, if not the most, important rebuttals to the claim that the upper class prohibits certain parts of language for their own self benefit, is the idea that society as a whole can benefit from having as similar a language as possible. For example, we can strengthen as a community if we all can communicate much more effectively, and so therefore the ruling class is not banning language out of malice and disgust, but rather as a way to formalize communication to its full potential. The problem with this is that it rids language of its nuances that vary from culture to culture, that make for a rich diverse language that allows people to express themselves to their fullest. People naturally develop language in their heads as toddlers, and to force an artificial structure is not only counterproductive, but can’t exactly be done. Chomsky also recalls the time he was in grade school, and was forced to learn certain made up grammar rules, having to say things like “he shall and you will”, and no one could remember them because they were artificial. This helps frame the core property of language, that it develops naturally over time, it’s not decided and written down. So banning the use of certain words won’t actually change the language to be more effective, people will still use the words, but now they’re simply being ostracized for doing so, which is clearly the opposite of a more strengthened community. Not only can you not change a language, but you also can’t really predict what it’s going to be like in the future. As Chomsky also explains “it’s like predicting the weather, there are simply too many variables.” So trying to control the path of a language is a fruitless endeavor. Not only that, but we would have a much richer culture if instead we accepted other people’s language, and more people came to be multilingual.

So in summary, because people in power want to remain in power they tend to try and control or purify language, seemingly out of an unwillingness to accept other cultures, and as a way of othering the lower class, and this has been shown to be the case through many historical examples. Curse words tend to originate from touchy subjects, but many times will be exasperated by the upper class to belittle the lower class. If you ever feel bad about cursing, know that there is no reason to feel bad, because it’s inappropriateness was completely made up. So the next time you feel that your language isn’t proper or refined, just remember that the idea of a proper language is arbitrary and baseless, so that if your language effectively communicates to people, then it’s completely valid.

References

AHEF. (2017, March 17). The Reformation Led to the Translation and Printing of the Bible into the Peoples’ Common Languages. American Heritage Education Foundation, Inc. https://americanheritage.org/translation-printing-bible-common-languages

Chomsky, N. (1989). Noam Chomsky: upon reflection interview with al page The Concept of Language (Noam Chomsky) (youtube.com)

Dent, S. (2020, October 9). Susie Dent: how English swear words went away from the holy and back to the shit again. inews.co.uk. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/susie-dent-english-swear-words-171621#:~:text=The%20word%20comes%20from%20%E2%80%98scitte%E2%80%99%2

Dictionary.com. (2019, August 11). Why Is “Ain’t” Such A Controversial Word? Thesaurus.com. https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/aint-amnt-haint-baint/

Johnson, E. O. (2018, August 10). Intriguing and shameful ways Africans were renamed after their capture by slave traders. Face2Face Africa. https://face2faceafrica.com/article/intriguing-and-shameful-ways-africans-were-renamed-after-their-capture-by-slave-traders

Lyons, D ( 2017, april 19) MSN. (n.d.). Www.msn.com. April 19, 2017, from https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/the-actual-percentage-of-us-population-that-speaks-spanish-it-s-not-what-you-d-expect/ar-AA1cQ6z3#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20about%2041.7%20 million%20 people

‌Orlando, A. (2023, September 5). The history of swear words: Where the &%@! do they come from? Discover Magazine. https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-history-of-swear-words-where-the-and-do-they-come-from

Sam Louie MA, LMHC, CSAT | Psychology Today. (n.d.). Www.psychologytoday.com. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/contributors/sam-louie-ma-lmhc-csat

shit | Origin and meaning of shit by Online Etymology Dictionary. (n.d.). Www.etymonline.com. https://www.etymonline.com/word/shit

The Norman Conquest and the English Language: English Meets French. (n.d.). My English Language. https://www.myenglishlanguage.com/history-of-english/norman-conquest/

Vizarra, I. ( 2019, October 14). Battle of Hastings: The War that Changed the Course of English Language Forever. Medium. https://medium.com/@ianvizarra/battle-of-hastings-the-war-that-changed-the-course-of-english-language-forever-c85f3d1269b7

vulgar | Etymology of vulgar by etymonline. (n.d.). Etymonline. https://www.etymonline.com/word/vulgar C%20%E2%80%98excrement%E2%80%99%20%28and%20not%2C,majority%20of%20swear%20words%20are%20Anglo-Saxon%20in%20origin.

Posted in Portfolio—Temporal, Research, Temporal | 1 Comment

Research paper – Naturechild

Posted on April 14, 2024 by Naturechild101

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

Posted in NatureChild, Portfolio—NatureChild, Research | 2 Comments