I have an hypothesis that as more people learn how to perceive this type of interconnection, we might improve our skills at diagnosing how our regular, everyday interactions do contribute to perpetuating largescale problems (e.g., war, poverty, global warming). Perhaps then we can develop more intentionality about nexting with our friends, neighbors, coworkers, families – and even our enemies! – in such ways as to bring about substantial changes in some of those huge dynamics that usually feel beyond control.

Interesting that nationality/citizenship is so embedded in your team’s presentation and the commentary and analysis of it by classmates. The solutions for global problems will necessarily have to involve many countries and big multinational businesses, too.

Masr27 said in their response that “Although you may forget, some people don’t really know you well, therefore, the brief exhalations you give off are their only way of identifying you. You might think your a very calm person, but maybe the person you buy your coffee from in the morning only sees you yelling on our cellphone.” This shows them giving advice and speaking from a point of higher knowledge, a feature of discursive communication. They show a very seasoned approach to the consequentiality issue, being in touch with their emotions and offering advice based on our presentation.

In the comment left by Thecakeisalie they identify a clear instance of discourse between myself and a team member. They analyzed this instance in a convincing way saying that my exhalation was offensive because I “lumped [my teammate] into a negative group without being looked at as an individual.” The source of this conflict was actually quite trivial but my exhalation voicing my concern for my group’s behind-ness did incite this interesting discourse, which Thecakeisalie has found meaning and interest in analyzing.

Also in the wikipedia entry is the statement “CDA does not limit its analysis to specific structures of text or talk, but systematically relates these to structures of the sociopolitical context.” In their comment, Johnniedrama said “by someone expressing emotion to another in a communicative manner, the receiver of said emotion will respond accordingly. These ideas are pretty simple to grasp.” This example shows that they are able to apply the ideas of our presentation to society in general, and analyze the connections between the communication process, consequentiality, and the discourse present in our project.
In Jaggerbunny’s comment they talk about the contrasting experiences recanted by two immigrants to the US present in project. Here they show an analysis-level approach to the specific discourses of these two making note that “instead of arguing that the United States is the greatest country in the world, he presents evidence from both sides.” The social implications of this observation are interesting and critical discourse theory might apply to the way certain discourses, or exposures to those, might have formed the contrasting opinions in their example.