Central argument: Polite terms such as "thank you" or "you're welcome" are starting to disappear from our lives and are replaced with other terms, as people are becoming more casual and maybe even rude.

The terms we use did change over time. It's always been changing. The terms I used over the mere 17 years of my life changed immensely. As some famous saying said, "The only constant in this world is change," or something of that context.

That is very true. We humans always change. The trend will never stay the same. New concepts or ideas will be introduced, and some of them will become viral, changing our way of living.

Same with what we say. Words such as "dope" referred to drugs. But now, somehow, it has changed its meaning to be "cool." Who, in the 20th century, would have ever even imagined that the word "sick" would be transformed to mean something like "cool," or "nice." That doesn't even make any sense. And now we use "damn" as "very," and it's not even a swear word anymore. We say it in front of the teachers.

However, just because what we say changes, doesn't mean what we mean changes too. We use words according to their meanings, and no matter how rude it might seem to uncreative and grumpy adults, if it means the same thing then I don't think there is any harm in it. These old men be flipping 'bout it, but we ain't care cuz we still be dope! As I said, if it means the same, there shouldn't be a problem. It's like "fuck." The word itself doesn't hold any value. It's the fact that humans have decided to give it a bad meaning that made it bad-ass. The meaning is important. Therefore if we say "damn" with the meaning of "very," we won't get in trouble even if we are with the principal. However, if we use it as damn "damn," as in "damn it," the situation might differ. So if we say "what up, dawg~" instead of "how are you, my friend," but still mean the same thing, then it is the same thin! No being rude or rebellious or anything like that. Adults gotta chill out in life and realize the world is changing. (Gasp! Really?) I believe it's about time we use our ghetto-child language with adults too now. Lol. I'm just joking, that was a bit too far. Anyways, I'm just saying that we should tolerate the seemingly-rude-but-meaning-the-same terms. And I'm not saying we should tolerate the seemingly-rude-and-meaning-the-rude terms. We should place consequences on those hipster wannabe immature kids who dare try to be playing with old men. No one messes with age. No one f*** around with the "experienced." However, I believe the world is not as bad as to have all these people using the new, modern, reformed terms  to be rude. So I hope everyone just cope with it and live with it. Peace (lol). [I don't really talk like this, I don't want to, and I wouldn't like to. I just do this for the sake of my own entertainment of making fun of the "cool guys" that actually think it's cool to talk like this. Just so you know I'm not a psychopathic weirdilistic creep. (:]

Basically, I'm kinda agreeing with only the last paragraph of the article. "What won't change ... is the importance of acknowledging appreciation expressed." The meaning is important, not the (physical seemingageof the) words. "... if the appreciation is expressed in a genuine manner, I do not see it as a loss of courtesy." True that. If we mean it, even though our words might sound bit more shallow or rude, it should be fine.
The only conflict is, will others be cool enough to understand that we mean the same?

Why We Like What We Like

Central argument: We like what we like, obviously with the affect of what we physically sense with our five-senses, but mostly due to our mindset; due to our perception and thinking that something is likeable.

It indeed depends on our belief that something is good. The taste of the food does matter. when we come across a new food, we probably judge its taste by our tongue. However, whether we like that food or not, as the author argues and as I agree with him, depends wholly on our brain. It depends on whether we decide that it's good or not, whether we decide to like it or not.

I'm sure this is true with everyone that some of the things we like are urged by popular choice. People pretensiously like something just because many others say it's good. For example, I used to hate steak. The thick, stuffed, gross big chunk of cow was certainly overrated. I still didn't receive an answer why people think so highly of it, even when I had it in the most popular steak place, but I just pretended that it is amazing just because everyone else insisted so. Well, now I really do like meat and can't live without it, and this is not a perception affected by others.

A great example from the blog is holding hands with someone. It doesn't really matter what kind of hand it is, does it? It doesn't matter how the other person's hand feels on your hands. It depends on your brain whether to decide to like it or not. If you hold hands with someone you like, you like it. That's up to your brain. However, these are natural things. The problem in the real-life situation emerges when people are fake with what they like, just following the majority. Like the starting example of the article. People would act like gourmet liver pate is some amazing food, and dog food is gross, even though the scientific research reveals that most people don't even notice the difference between the two when they are similarly served with the "right sort of garnish." Same with my steak example, I think it gradually turns into a conflict when the fakeness goes over the line. It is certainly a problem in our world. Being unique, different, truthful to oneself, and standing up for oneself are denied because the world wants you to follow them. Follow their decision of what you should like, not your own honest feelings. If those dishes taste the same, why don't we just admit dog food tastes good or gourmet liver pate sucks? I don't get it.

As time goes by, the interruption of "attitudes and expectations" is increasing. In today's world, where people care so much about what others would think, it is all about the mindset of liking something - not your actual feelings of liking something by its goodness. You can't like something that others would find silly. Because from that day on, you would become an outcast.

If Chuck Norris said poop is tasty, I bet half the world would say the same. The author is true when he says, "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that we are frauds and fakes." We care so fucking much about our reputation that we start becoming fake. We pretend to like what we don't fucking like just to be cool. Just to follow the stupid crowd. Are you - an individual - afraid of them? When facing our own ego problems, there are no families or friends anymore. It's all about me, myself. What the hell is the world up to? Where is this craphole heading? We decide our friends according to our own fucking selfish reaosns. I have friends, thank goodness, because I'm good at drawing and dancing. That's all people care about. These fake-ass motherfucking bitches can't be true to themselves for once. I'm a fake-ass motherfucking bitch too. I won't blame everything on the individuals though, because Woodstock is turning people like that. The environment is threatening them with the terror of being an outcast that they should follow everyone else pretensiously. What the fuck!? The system is taking over our lives, and we are, like douchebags, following the system. Get out of there, man. Please. Let's get out and enjoy.

The rise of "Awesome" (An advanced apology for the last paragraph. Ran out of materials to write because my point is simple and short and strong unlike these newb writers'. I couldn't extend my point any further.)

Central Argument: The meaning of the word "awesome," along with many other words, has deteriorated because of its over-usage and undermination of its value.

Awesome has certainly demoted. Just because it sounds better, even though they probably realize that it means more than "good" or "nice," people replace their shallow compliments with this word. They know it's worth more, but just use it where it means less than it means because it's fun to say it. It's also easy to say unlike "great" or "fantastic," where there are the "r"s and "f"s that Asians have difficulty pronouncing. (Well, not me.)

The author is right. People now use awesome for anything they find merely "good." They use "awesome" instead of any other vocabularies that stand for something acceptable. People mistake themselves to be cool if they use this word, which they were until it was so over-dosed and abused. Wannabes spoiled it.

"Awe" along with "some" would literally mean something that's worth to be awed at. "Awe" is defined as an emotion that combines dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime (Merriam-Webster dictionary). It is about at the level of the terms, "shock," "mind-blowing," etc. So awesome would be an adjective most probably only suitable for God, like how the article's examples of the Bible suggest. However, now it doesn't even reach the depth in meaning of "amazing" or "fantastic." "Awesome" has just become a casual replacement for "good," "fair," or "nice." 

Awesome is said and written everywhere. It is too common now. It is indeed a "worn-out phrase." And due to the lightness people use it with and their lack of responsibility and respect for this word, it has degraded to a common vocab. 

"Hey, we can go to chardukan today." 

"Awesome!"

No, of course being able to go to chardukan is not something that is "awe-some." You don't awe at the 'majestic grace' of the opportunity to have a 'luxurious five-star dinner' at the 'monumental, four beautifully furnished' shops. What the heck is wrong with you?

But I'm not necessarily saying I don't do that...

Well, it's not my fault for using awesome so casually like other people. The society mind-controlled me. They influenced me. Everyone used it so lightly, so I gave it a try too. And it felt beautiful. It was addictive like tapping someone on the back and acting like I didn't do it, or standing right behind someone without them realizing and singing "I'm a creep" by Radiohead to creep them out, or orange juice. So now I became one of the most "awesome"-using person in the entire globe. But this article reminded me, reached my heart, and convinced me about the destruction of the importance of this awe-some word. I was awestruck by the actual definition of "awesome" which I never thought of thinking about before I came across this article. And now I repent and agree with the author. Now I'll stand for the rights of "awesome." It did lose its meaning and I'm going to change it back. I'll make a change. I'm a seed of change. People, let us stop abusing "awesome" and start protecting its awesomeness. Let's be awed at the word "awesome." Is it too late? No, it's never too late. We can make this world a better place. (Sorry, I went a bit too far. I was getting over-emotional. I really want to save this poor little vocaby by reaching out to it and respecting its adorableness.)

What does it mean to be cool?

The author argues that being cool, which originates from the idea of remaining calm even under stress that has eventually transformed into a practiced behavioral attitude by black people, means being a winner without trying too hard to win, without winning everything, and winning unpredictably. He also says living in a constant of alienation because you can't revel in total control or total detachment but have to bring forward unusual constellations of ideas and actions. Cool is a paradoxical fusion of submission and subversion. The author is acting like a dick and making everything so complicated. He thinks he is damn smart.

The author has all his history of "cool" and all this useless bull-crap of his philosophy on what the heck it really means to be "cool," but I don't give a damn about his argument. He failed miserably in convincing, or at least getting his point straight, because it is annoyingly long and unnecessarily complex. I read the whole thing through, some sentences even several times if that's what it took me to see what he was saying, yet didn't quite understand what his actual message was. I don't blame myself because I could understand paragraphs from AP English exam. The only sentence I really got was the "paradoxical fusion of submission and subversion" that my English teacher so kindly explained in details. I do understand parts of the article but I don't see the whole point - the main argument; what he is trying to communicate through this. So what does it really mean to be cool? And after all, I think his definition of "cool" that the rest of the world uses and think of as, is extremely wrong. I disagree with him. Nevertheless, he succeeds in showing the example of "uncool."

Being cool basically means being awesome - being someone that others want to be like; being chill, funny, happy, yet powerful, thoughtful, deep, understanding, skillful, critical, solemn, etc. However, these are only the characteristics that I think are required for one to be cool. It depends on the individuals' thoughts and experiences that have developed their views of being cool. The views of the world, other people, and God. These are all the parts that contribute to building up the conclusion for oneself if something is cool or not. Not just about being cool, but for every single question in life. The answer depends on the education, experience, and mindset of each individual.

There is no one answer to the question, "what does it mean to be cool?" And the author is probably nor correct because his silly little philosophy can't beat the belief of majority. Has Darwin's theory of Evolution disproved God's creation of humans as humans? There still are majority that believe that God created humans as humans. Has the Big Bang theory changed people's belief of God's creation? No. As so, most people believe being cool has something to do with how amazingly one deals with certain situations. How so many people like him/her. How awesome he/she is. Not how you paradoxically submit and subverse. People already have developed their own idea of what it means to be cool. Everyone probably thinks slightly differently of cool, but the main idea would be something like "being cool = awesome."

To end with, the ultimate idea of "you" being cool, from my analysis and years of complicated calculations of treads of thoughtful thoughts and considerations, is when someone admits you are cool, despite all the disgusting human traits of ego, selfishness, desperation for attention, jealousy, hatred, etc. Then you know that you are really cool. Or, not giving a damn about it and living your life as it is and as yourself.

Marriage and Single Life

I, the most tolerable of all beings that stand on two feet - including some weird dogs that do so as well - hath not known the foolishest of the foolishest humans that could ever possibly turn this indeed a very appealing topic for teenagers into a fearsome cause of brain seizure. 

The central argument of the author, I think, is that one should marry to reproduce to contribute to the future times and also to be better-hearted and in control with the responsibility of a family to feed, where as a single life wanders in freedom with self-pleasure and humor, and doesn't have to worry about the financial burden of a family, which could possibly help the single ones to be more concerned towards the others and do great things. 

A human, as God has created, must marry. Marriage is the essential element of life. A single might survive, but with loneliness and dearest heart for a partner all along. And I certainly have seen some people that "chose" to be alone, but I could also see the discontent in their eyes. Male and female are meant to be together, with the bond of love between themselves, because they fit just like puzzle pieces. (Yeah, I meant both spiritually and physically.) 

I want to marry right now. I want a woman of my own. Not like any random girl that I'm attracted to or the cutest girl in school, but a faithful, understanding soul-mate that I would pick so pickily and carefully. A woman I would never want to slap across the face, punch right on the nose, or rip open and shatter every bone in the body. I'm joking, but at least a woman that wouldn't make me get sick of her. 

As so, I'm already dreaming about my future wife. Guys need wives to control them from anger, drinking, smoking, killing, raping, etc, and girls need husbands to keep them in the kitchen, all in control. We dearly need each other, don't we, my brothers and sisters? No one chooses not to marry. They "choose" not to marry because they couldn't.

A single man won't have wealth. Trust me on this. It's not that they are single that they have wealth that were spared from wife and kids. It's that they have financial problems that they don't have a wife. Who would marry a broke loser? No one. And even if a single man is rich, does he contribute a lot to the society? No! He uses it up all by himself drinking and smoking because he feels like his life sucks that he doesn't have a partner, and start self-sympathizing that would only increase his hopelessness and loneliness which would result to emotional disorder that might also affect mental disorder and give hard times to others as well and ultimately just end up being a useless, lonely, desperate douche. Then after that, because he feels so bad about himself, he'll start going to casinos where he will lose all his money and get all depressed and finally hang himself. Single life is not a happy life. Single life is no good. My math teacher has problems with anger-management just because he can't get married. Also he acts like a pedophile with female students.

My opinion is, marriage is amazing - I want to get married right now so damn freaking really extremely very bad - and single life sucks it's own cock. (It does make sense!) 

Thinking vs. Feeling: The Psychology of Advertising

The author doesn't really have a straight-forward central argument. Instead, he pulls different researches into his article to argue from many sides, but never draws conclusion that one is better than the other. So his central argument basically is: whether an advertisement is good or not depends on varying factors (target audience, situation, product, etc), and it is yet to be found which type - thinking or feeling, rational or irrational - of advertisements successfully appeal to the audience.
I say, it depends on the product. Even if Spice (a local Indian company) mobile phones come up with the best ad and iPhone doesn't advertise at all, people are still going to buy iPhone. That is because the ethos for iPhone has become too big to beat because it is actually that good. And even if they buy a Spice phone, they will still know that iPhone is better, and would have bought it if they could. Advertisements depend on the product.
Think back to the most memorable or funny ad you have ever seen in your life. Now answer, do you own that product? The answer is no. Just because the ad is good doesn't mean you buy the product. You might entertain the audience for that short while, but that does not make it even close to that particualr audience thinking about actually buying that crap. If I don't like the product, no matter how much I love the ad, I wouldn't buy it. Would you? Well, you should also consider the mentality of the person. Football-lovers don't buy the new Adidas clits because of Messi. They buy it because it is good. Of course they want to wear the same football shoes as Messi, but if it wasn't really good in its performance enhancement, they wouldn't buy it.
So my central argument is that neither one - thinking or feeling - of the psychology of advertising really encourages the consumer to purchase the product. It is all about the product. If the product is good, they will buy it. If the product is bad, they won't. :)    

TV Is Good for You?

TV is good, at least for rural women, because it makes a suitable substitute for education and can possibly work its "magic" on the powerless women to change their attitudes, especially towards their abusive husbands.

Nooooooooooooooooooo, it's not.
TV is not good whatsoever. Many people tend to acknowledge TV for its educational facet, but they often refuse to mention its consequences.
My brother had to wear glasses since elementary school because he was usually home alone with the sole entertainment of TV. He grew out of it after a few years, but in the beginning he hated wearing the funny-looking ovals around his eyes. However, mom forced him to wear it because if he didn't his eyesight would only grow worse. To describe how much he hated it, he slid it into his pocket as soon as he walked out the front door and put it back on only when he came back home. Of course one day mom caught him and scolded him, making sure he wore it after then.
It's not much of a problem from adolescence because it becomes very common - including some people that want to wear it. Still, it gets troublesome when it comes to rough sports, sleeping (you have to place it somewhere safe), washing, etc. Also, worst of all, you have a bad sight which might cause difficulties in certain circumstances.
Adding to effects on eyesight, TV-watching is also addictive, and possibly results to stupidity. One of my classmates, who only knew about studying before he came across a TV episode called "Chuck," gradually started spending more time watching than studying. After a few weeks, he started downloading every new episode on his laptop and watching it everywhere, every time. He even reached to an extent where he started watching the show in the middle of classes. Long time back when my family still lived in Korea, my mom was also addicted to a Korean drama for which she so strictly sacrificed her two hours every week. Nowadays, I avoid TV - especially the endless dramas - because I know it can get very addicting.
I don't have a scientific support, but I know from experience that staring at the screen of an electronic device for a large amount of time destroys your brain. I went through it. I'm adjusted now. School did get harder as I moved to higher classes, but it is also true that I don't try half as much now as I used to before, because I find it too much for me. I was considered a smart, scholastic kid years back. I excelled in math and science, and never missed A honor roll for seven semesters straight since I first came here. However, now, I don't bother to do homework because it just takes up too much time, I find every single curriculum very challenging, and I can't even concentrate in classes. It was ever since I got my laptop and iPod. I spend most of the time staring at the screen (because now most of the homework are also to be done on computer) that torture my eyes and head. TV is definitely not any better than laptop.
There might be many other bullshit people come up with to excuse themselves for watching the stupifying device, but from my experience/philosophy/logical calculations that take place in my head every single moment, I can, without a second of hesitation and without doubt, say that TV is bad.