Ono and Cheung’s article examines the idea of ‘Asian American hipster’ rhetoric used by the Fung Brothers in their videos that appeal to a(n) Asian, Asian American, and non Asian/ Asian American audience(s) . Their “millennial” rhetoric used through digital media offers insight into Asian and Asian American food, travel, parents, and culture . From the point of a reader (me), rhetoric is the way we hear, read, or interpret certain things. From the point of the writer or speaker, the rhetoric used depends on the intended audience(s). For example, I found the rhetoric of the Fung Brothers in their videos more appealing than the article dissecting it because it involved less reading, offered visual aids, and incorporated comedy.( Because I am a “millennial”) The article, on the other hand uses analytical and academic rhetoric with arguments to support their research.
Flores discredits the “30 million word gap” and the blame it lays on low income communities of color for the academic inequalities of low income children (their own children). He utilizes framing in his argument to further discredit the word gap. Framing is used to evoke a positive or negative “frame” around a topic or issue frequently used in politics. Flores recognizes and agrees with those who are in agreement with the gap that parents and caregivers in low income communities continue to face barriers that prolong radicalized poverty. However Flores does not agree with the solution “if they just used more words”. He utilizes framing by acknowledging their success in bringing attention to the word gap and also acknowledges their shortcoming; producing an adequate solution. Instead of funding to “fix” low income students and parenting practice (whatever “fixing” people means), Flores suggests that funds would be better spent in aiding teachers in valuing and cultivating what students bring to the classroom instead of their shortcoming and the economic development of the communities from which these students come from.