Tuesday
Cyber-Cat Got Your Tongue?
Your cell phone starts to ring, and when you look over to see who it is, you notice it’s one of your friends from school. She probably wants to get together; after all, it’s Saturday and you really have nothing else planned. You consider taking the call, but you don't. Instead, you say to yourself, "I'll call her back just as soon as I master this level.” You promise yourself that you will call her because, even though you have almost every class together, you really haven’t had much of a chance to get together in last couple of weeks or so; your schedule has just kept you way too busy. So you promise yourself, "Just as soon as I master this...” People who are hooked on virtually any kind of gaming, encounter a number of situations like this one all the time. In these kinds of situations these people have to choose whether to interact with the real world around them or to continue living in their virtual worlds/utopias that they have created for themselves. Unfortunately, the real world hardly ever wins this battle.
Social consequences are a very real part of a gaming addiction. Addicted gamers spend so much time playing, that when it comes time to interact, they are at a disadvantage. Eventually their personal relationships get put on stand by and are often neglected or sometimes they disappear altogether. If they do not neglect their friends then it is common that they become so obsessed with their game of choice that it becomes all they want to talk about and their friends lose interest in them.
When playing online games or video games where there is some way to communicate with other players in the game, the fact that you are “chatting” creates the allusion that you are actually engaging in normal every day conversation; you not. The way you talk in a game is much different from the way one would normally talk in real life. As an experiment, I took up playing an online game called, “The Godfather: Five Families”. For those readers that don’t know the background of the story, it is in a sense, a mafia game. But in this game you attack other cities, join up with gangs, and try to become the biggest and the best “mobster”. I found it to be very addicting. There was a chat box in the bottom left hand corner of the game screen where one could “chat” with other players. Here is, what I believe to be, a very explicit example of the types of conversations that go on during this game. Keep in mind this is a real portion from the chat box, but names have been replaced for the most part.
Player A: “JOIN THE PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1 CREW OR WE’LL ATTACK UR CITY!!!!!!!
Player B: “f**k u!
Player C: “Lo siento pero estoy en una “crew”. Alguien quiere una batallon?
Player D: “@D-3-gangsta thank u so F***ing much for killin all my God***n gangs! mother f****r!!!!”
Player E: Imam problem s mojim “crew”… dali neko moze da mi pomogne?
Player A: “JOIN THE PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1 GANG OR WE’LL ATTACK UR CITY!!!!!!!
Player B: “F**k that’s annoying!!”
Player A: “B**ch be hatin on my crw!”
Player B: “f***ing c**k sucker”
Player E: “does any1 have any $$ they aint usin?”
Player B: “no 1 likes F***ing beggrs!! get ur own f***ing $$!!!! loser…
Player A: “JOIN THE PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1 GANG OR WE’LL ATTACK UR CITY!!!!!!!
Player B: “F**K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Any one fluent in the ways of human to human, face to face conversing knows that it is not socially acceptable to just go up to someone and start cussing at them over something otherwise seen as a trifle. But to someone who constantly plays games and just rattles off ridiculous fodder in the chat boxes of online games does not leave a lot of conversation topics for real live conversations. Social interaction is the basis of our current world. The deficiency of real social interaction that results from obsessive online gaming may have long term and rather disparaging social consequences. “A game addicted teen will not develop effective social skills, which will impede his or her ability to develop and maintain healthy relationships in college and or future jobs.”(Wood) Suddenly, the player is 21 years old but has maintained the, most often, awkward social skills of a 14 year old. He/she has no idea of how to make long lasting friends, talk to girls/boys, or just "hang out” and enjoy people's company and conversation.
Some studies have shown that different genders react to this in different ways. “Males may be more likely than females to act aggressively after exposure to violent gamming. Males typically exhibit higher levels of aggressiveness than females, and exposure to online gaming might have the greatest impact on persons. Females [however], are prone to behavioral mood swings. The most common being depression…” (Wood) Depending on the type of online game the social reactions to them by certain people may vary. However, it is in fact certain that no matter how it makes the gamer act, that person’s social life is for sure going to suffer from the constant and relentless involvement in online gaming.
A common retaliation to the argument of gamming leading to social awkwardness is that that would be like saying, “…people that that play sports video games all the time will [automatically] make them better at playing the sport in real life…” (Zenko) The most important thing to see here is that this author committed the fallacy of false analogy. The analogy he brought up in no way ties to the original argument, and yet he is trying to make a believable counter argument. Trying to discredit the main argument by throwing out a nonchalant ridiculous counter argument is all this author was worried about in writing his own article. On top of that fallacy he then goes on to say that “If [online] games could turn gamers into antisocial misfits then why hasn’t anyone put a stop… to the[se] game[s]…” (Zenko) Here the author tries to wrap up his argument by committing one last fallacy that he believes will take the cake. He commits a fallacy known as the slippery slope. He tells his side of the opposition’s “conclusion” and gives one option of what could be done and makes it seem like it is the only logical thing that could possibly follow from the opponent’s conclusion. Then poses it as a question to shift the blame back to the other side to show that if it really is that big of a deal and “if it is true” then why has something not been done about it yet?
The only answer is, is that it is just not that simple! There have been many examples of social awkwardness resulting from constant gamming and lack of communication with the real world. The gamers spend all of their time playing the game that they find interesting and do not learn how to communicate like a normal everyday human being. They forget/do no learn how to just relax and have a normal conversation with a friend. Or sometimes, as portrayed above, they end up neglecting their friends.
The social awkwardness created by the isolationism of gaming addiction, unfortunately, feeds the addiction. When an attempt is made to try and taper off, and then their attempt, they find, is made in vain because they do not know how to communicate just shows them that there is no point to stop playing and they keep going with the gaming; all the while, feeding their addiction. Besides, “…in the gaming world they have created [for themselves], relationships are easier and are already waiting for them to [step into their avatar] and pursue them…”(Zenko)
“A common reason for this failure just happens to be the lack of conversations that the gamer is well versed in.”(Wood) Usually one of the only topics that the gamer knows how to talk about and well is the game that he/she has chosen to obsess on. This leads to long, otherwise boring conversation about an online game, a fake virtual world, that the person being told about it, has no connection to at all. Most often than not, this leads to that “friend” losing interest in their gaming “friend” and the two of them growing apart. Then as the gamer desperately tries to find other friends, they quickly find that there are not many to be had when your main topic of conversation is an online game. Seeing that their attempt has failed they quickly go and hide themselves in a virtual world that knows and loves them.
A typical result of “hiding in a virtual world” is depression. When you have no desire to go out and interact and socialize then you cut yourself off from the rest of the world then you in a sense become a hermit of sorts. Staring at a screen for hours and hours on end can really start to get to you. It is unhealthy to sit there as an inactive bump on a log. Inactivity, and an antisocial attitude are two main components to a depression problem. No to mention living mainly in a world that is virtual and fake, when you finally wake up and realize that the world you are in is not as perfect as the one you created for yourself it can be a bit shocking and a bit depressing when one finally makes that discovery.
I do not intend to propose a solution, I am merely pointing out a pertinent and rather distressing fact: People that become addicted to online games of any kind spend so much time playing those games, that when it comes time to interact with the friends and family around them, they are at a troubling disadvantage. Because they spend most of their time playing these games they become well versed in the vernacular of those games and that is all they remember how to talk about and as a result, it is common for people like that to drive a wedge between the people that used to enjoy the now “addict gamer’s” company. The plain and simple thing is: their personal relationships get put on stand by and are often neglected or sometimes become nonexistent. These gamers put themselves in the position of having to choose between real world human interaction or virtual self-created fake interaction. It is definitely time for the real world to start winning this battle.
Works Cited
Wood Wendy, Frank Y Wong, and J. Gregory Chachere. “Effects of Media Violence on Viewers' Aggression in Unconstrained Social Interaction.” Psychological Bulletin 1991, Vol. 109, No. 3, 371-383. WEB. November 16 2011.
Zenko, Darren. “Sure, blame games - for everything; Looters take cues from Grand Theft Auto, but then everyone's playing at something.” The Toronto Star. Section: Entertainment. August 13 2011. WEB. November 16 2011.
The Godfather: Five Families. Paramount. Kabam. 4 Feb 2002.
Friday
Did He Use That Rhetoric Correctly?
Mirjana Kentera
Professor Mullikan
English Comp 1
Morrill Hall, Room 208
3 October 2011
Did He Use That Rhetoric Correctly?
The author Juan Williams argues in his opinion article, “Will Young Voters Sink Obama in 2012?” that if young voters do not get out and vote come election day 2012, then they will never be able to get out from under their mountain of student loan that they have put themselves under. Williams then mentions a recent poll in which 44% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 that vote, “disapprove of disapprove of how [President] Obama has handled [the problem with] youth unemployment, while only 31% [of voters from this age group] approve.” This discontent, Williams states, will be potentially disturbing to the Democratic Party. Then Williams, through many appeals to the reader’s ethos, pathos and logos tries to give some reasons as to why young voters should get out and vote, but also what may happen if they do.
Fox News has made itself available through several mediums. Fox News TV Channel is available to over 102 million households in the US and further to viewers internationally. As of August 2010, FoxNews.com has been averaging and estimated 24 million visitors each month. A poll was taken of the political views of their audience and of the poll’s respondents, 18% identified as liberal, 41% identified as moderate and 40 % as conservative, while 37% identified as Republican, 40% identified as Democrat, and 23% identified as independent/other.
Although William’s Article doesn’t say anything in particular about William’s credibility as a political writer for this article, (in other words, Williams doesn’t write anything about himself in his article) a segment regarding Williams’ ethos was attached to the end of his article by a third party. The segment states that Juan Williams is an author, writer, and Fox News Political Analyst. It also mentions the title of his most recent book as being: Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate. In telling his audience this, this third party wants us to understand that Williams is a credible author when it comes to writing an article on politics because he is a Political analyst. Being a Political Analyst means he is trained in evaluating goals, cultures, values, motivations, society and ideologies of politics and the people involved in it. By mentioning Williams wrote a book, the third party wants the audience to know that he is a good enough writer to get one of his books published. Then the third party also states that it was Williams’ most recent book. This has the audience infer that Williams has written a number of other books as well as the one they mentioned. In telling the audience this information, this third party has attempted to make Williams seem credible to the audience through the use of ethos.
Williams gives the reader a reason for needing young voters to vote this election, through pathos, by quoting Lauren Asher, the president of the Institute for College Access and Success. Asher stated that "Things like buying a home, starting a family, starting a business, saving for [the voter’s own] kids' education may not be options for people who are [still or in the middle of] paying off a lot of student debt.” By throwing in this quote, Williams paint a gloomy picture. He is trying to have is audience picture one of two things. One, parents caught in this debt that have one or two kids, are unable to put their child/children through any kind of college, for lack of money. Or picture number two, which is a world where people get married and do not even have kids because they are so far in debt that they do not want to have a child that cannot have the opportunity of higher education like so many others before them could. Either one of these pictures conveys an emotion of unhappiness or grief, for the bleak future that is to come if student loans are unable to be paid off. Another area where Williams makes one last attempt to appeal to his audience is at the end of the article when he says “If those young voters stay home on Election Day, they will be ceding the election to seniors at the heart of the Tea Party — no friends to Democrats.” In stating this, Williams is able to convey the feeling of ambition to his audience. Williams is hoping that by filling them with this ambition he is provoking some feeling in his audience to just get up and go vote for the right thing lest the Tea Party movement wipe out the Democratic Party.
In this article, Williams makes use of simple logic in several instances to help get his point across to his audience in a way that hopefully they will understand. One argument in which Williams specifically uses logos to help his argument is when he states, “Even if young people find a way to repay their loans, their high level of under- and unemployment is an ongoing threat to Democrats.” Here Williams appeals to the simple logic of: if the debt (as supposedly put there by the democrats) still remains, then chances of anyone voting for a Democrat are very slim. In this way, Williams was able to appeal to his reader’s logic to, in a way, get them to see who they should vote for, and who these people stand for. He is trying to get people to see that voting makes a difference and who you vote for will also make a difference. Williams says, “Young black and Hispanic voters have a close identification with the first president of color. But young white people do not” in his article. In this quote for example, Williams is using simple logic in talking about voters and their connection to the current President. It is visually obvious to virtually anyone, that the minority groups of Mexican and African Americans would feel a certain closeness to President Barack Obama, because he himself is obviously, visually of the African American race. Though the second part about the white voters not feeling this closeness is not necessarily as obvious but still holds some truth. It’s safe to say that usually people of the same race feel a closeness to one another, and that people of different races do not have that bond, though they may have others. In this way Williams uses logic to support his argument.
Throughout this article Williams successfully and effectively uses ethos, pathos and logos in conveying his opinions and feelings to his audiences. The rhetorical designs of Williams’ article prove to be consistent to his intended audiences explained previously. He plays to their emotions and logical understanding so that he can have the audience see it his way, and understand his desire for certain people in office as opposed to others. Williams was able to convey a bit of ethos, pathos and logos into his article, very subtly, using other’s quotes, and different hypothetical examples about how times are and how they could be if his article is heeded by his audience.
Works Cited
Williams, Juan. “Will Young Voters Sink Obama in 2021?” Fox News.com. 27 September 2011. WEB . 01 October 2011.
Poistive
After googling my name and seeing what kinds of hits come up, looking at my different accounts and reviewing the way I look on Facebook I think I can definitely say that I don’t have a negative web Identity. I don’t know if I would call it positive because other people may interpret in different ways. I don’t use foul language, I don’t post smutty pictures, and on Google my name doesn’t come up as someone else who is not a good person; I honestly don’t think there is anyone else with my exact name! My name in Google brings up my Facebook which is full of truthful honest nice things about me, and by googling my name the hits that come up are about me in architectural engineering, a website I made for English, and a number of sites connected to my life at my church and different events held for my church.
Online rape
After reading the article, “A Rape in Cyberspace” by Julian Dibbell I think that online rape is a very serious issue. Rape in general, has always been something that I found horrifying because its so unbelievably wrong, horrible and inappropriate. The Bungle Case shows the severity of rape and how it can change the lives of its victims for the rest of their life. According to Dibbell, “MUD rapists were of course assholes, but the presence of assholes on the system was a technical inevitability, like a noise on a phone line, and best dealt with not through repressive social disciplinary mechanisms”. Online rape definently exists and is becoming a real issue in our world because it truly frightens people to the point to where they have no idea of what to do know what to do. In the other case, when people are on online social networks they often have the choice to stop talking to the person who is abusing them online and can either block them or join another social network. I think social hackers are predators because they are just looking for some kind of attention on the internet. Chances are that they truly have no lives so they like to be someone else on the internet to enhance their self-esteem as someone different. I do believe that online rape is a real issue and that it takes tolls on peoples live each and every day. But they can prevent it by not putting themselves in that kind of situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)