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.
Monday
Mirjana Kentera
Professor Mullikan
English Comp 1
Morrill Hall, Room 208
3 November 2011
Rhetoric, Fallacies and Other Bologna
“Team Obama's Magic Act -- Rise of Deportations Hides Drop in Immigration Enforcement” by Bob Dane and, “Deportation by Numbers” by Paul Berdard, both tackle the pressing issue of illegal immigrants from Mexico who are crossing into our country more and more by the day and how we have and should go about dealing with them and deporting them. Dane creates quite a controversial stand point in his article, regarding “who is at fault” politically, whereas Berdard keeps his article relatively factual all the way through playing and catering to both sides of the political spectrum. Throughout his article, Dane gets help from more ethos and pathos rhetorical appeals as opposed to Berdard, who is prone to using more of the logical rhetoric. Disregarding their differences, in both articles it is unfortunately easy to find quite a few instances where the two authors commit a couple of logical fallacies in trying to prove their overall points to their readers. There points being, that President Obama is not doing everything in his power to keep the illegal aliens in their own country. This topic appeals to more of the right wing audience, as opposed to the left, because of the fact that it does not side with President Obama, but rather, criticizes him.
Neither Berdard nor Dane talk about their qualifications for writing their articles in the body of their actual article, Dane however has a note that follows his article which gives a quick statement about his qualifications. It merely states that he is a Communications Director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform. For those of us who do not know off-hand what that is, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, often referred to as FAIR, is a national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization comprised of concerned American citizens who share the common belief that the US’s immigration policies have to be reformed to better serve the interest of the nation. Having been given this information by this third party the reader may now assume through this ethos that Dane is in fact a qualified author for this topic. Berdard on the other hand gives his reader no indication of his qualifications in the body of the article or in a footnote as does Dane. We may then identify that his ethos has not been made apparent to the reader. Which does not mean he has committed the logical fallacy of False ethos because he has not given false information about himself, he has merely failed to give any information. The author is giving no information regarding obvious pertinent experience desired when writing an article of this magnitude. However, to play the sleuth for the moment, quite a bit of what would otherwise be called subtle evidence comes to light on behalf Berdard. This evidence is as follows: Berdard’s article was published in US News and World Report, which is an online news service highly acclaimed across the globe that is updated daily. Through further exploration of their website one may find that one “Paul Berdard” is the main writer for the section entitled “politics and policies”, the section where this article can be found. The reader can now assume that Berdard may be somewhat credible in terms of him writing this article but there is no obvious ethos which supports or states that he is otherwise qualified. The reader ends up having the choice to believe what this author is writing about or to drop this article and find one that clearly defines weather or no the author has the proper qualifications for this topic.
In the two articles Berdard and Dane make use of simple logic in several occasions to help get their points across to their audiences in a way that they will hopefully comprehend. However, it is apparent on reading Berdard’s article that the majority of his claims rely on a logical backing of evidence, whereas Dane makes use of logic but does not make it a necessity in supporting his claims. Berdard uses logic at its simplest in the following statements: “Since late 2007, the Customs and Border Protection workforce has jumped 32 percent; Border Patrol agents have surged from 14,923 to 21,370; and the share of miles on the southwest border under "operational control" has increased since 2006 to 44 percent, or 873 miles. And since then our country has been all the more safe.” Here he uses facts to lead into the logic of “if we do all this to make it safe, then it is now safer”. This type of logic is commonly referred to as false cause. Since “a” occurred before “b”, “a” is the cause of “b”. So, because our efforts at keeping the illegal immigrants were successful, we are safer as a result of it. Dane on the other hand, committed a fallacy of his own. He committed what is called a “slippery slope” logical fallacy. This is where a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another event without having any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. The quote that follows is the example that can be found in Dane’s article: “Unfortunately these new priorities [for dealing with illegal aliens] transmit a global message for all those thinking about coming to the United States illegally; get in by whatever means, don’t rape, rob, murder, or blow things up and you’ve got nothing to worry about. And if you do get caught, you’ll be released and given work authorization. The new priorities have created the ultimate incentive to attract more illegal immigration.” Here Dane is stating that because of these new priorities for dealing with illegal immigrants, then all an illegal immigrant has to do is not become a felon, and as a result they will be handed a work authorization. Then, to go one more step further: once they are handed a work authorization, it will give others a large incentive to come over the border and do the same. Then in the end, these new illegal immigrants will get the reward of a work authorization. And so continues the slippery slope of illegal aliens “slipping” under our border patrol’s noses.
In an attempt to appeal to the reader’s pathos, Dane begins the crux of his article with the following statement: “The famous magician Harry Houdini would be proud of President Obama’s efforts to fool Americans into believing that immigration enforcement has increased.” In this one statement alone the audience is meant to receive a number of points. First off, by mentioning Harry Houdini, Dane requires his readers to remember this sensational escape artist, illusionist and magician in order for them to truly understand the analogy he has made between the two men. Secondly, by comparing President Obama to Harry Houdini, Dane sets it up so that his readers get the feeling of betrayal by President Obama. This is betrayal in the sense that: President Obama promised to be so much to the people and now he has been “uncovered” by Dane as being nothing more than a magician and escape artist. When the President of the United States is comparable to an illusionist, the first thing anyone should be thinking is this is not right. After realizing this, the reader should want to know why the President is being compared to someone like Houdini and so they keep reading. In continuing on the reader sees that Dane continues by saying “President Obama’s efforts to fool Americans [into believing something]” leaves the reader wondering if he himself had been fooled by this, which then gives the reader a feeling of self-consciousness. In a sense, this could be called guilt by association; where one associates the opposition with something that is negative even if that something is wrong or illogical. So by associating President Obama with the magician Houdini Dane is committing this logical fallacy. An upstanding President should not expect to do well in upcoming elections after having been associated with a magician and illusionist.
We find also, that Berdard has committed the same fallacy of “guilt by association” In the following statement: “There's a new "decider" in town. Former President Bush first declared that "I'm the decider," and now President Obama is taking that title over.” In this statement, Berdard associates President Obama with the former President George W. Bush. Former President Bush is of an opposite party, and associating one with the other does not bode well for future elections for President Obama; considering former President Bush was as Berdard put it: “little better than laughed out of office”. This then makes the reader in league with former President Bush, feel stupid for having helped to support such a “ridiculous” candidate. It also makes the reader in league with President Obama feel insulted for having been compared to such an unworthy opponent. In both articles, each author made use of the same claim by President Obama, in order to support some argument. The study being: “[President] Obama claims that his nearly 400,000 annual deportations of illegal aliens are higher than yearly deportations under [former] President Bush.” Though they both make use of the same “quote” so to speak, they both ended up using it for different purpose. Berdard uses it in order to support the claim that the country is all the more safe because of all the deportations President Obama has seen to. Using it in this fashion, Berdard makes his readers feel content, that: A- they are safe, and B- their President is finally doing something when really he is not, here Berdard is being sarcastic. Dane on the other hand immediately follows this statement with the following one: “The claim is true – sort of, but so what?” With this one short, concise and “to the point” statement Dane is able to take the reader from being unsure of if the author is being sarcastic to sure of it. The readers of Berdard’s article are somewhat left in the realm of uncertainty, if they are not astute enough to pick up on the sarcasm, whereas Dane somewhat coddles his readers and makes sure he tells his readers exactly what he means and from this the emotions that they should be feeling. So to patch it up with his readers, Dane tacks this statement to the end of his point: “The previous president never adequately addressed the escalating cost and impact of illegal immigration so using his deportation numbers as a benchmark sets the bar very low.” Now the reader begins to see the logic behind Dane’s claim and they do not only have to trust the sarcasm, and his nonchalant air. In giving a bit of extra information Dane further continues to coddle his readers, by expounding a bit more on his idea, and his point that he made.
Throughout these two articles Berdard and Dane both successfully demonstrate the uses of rhetoric and logical fallacies in “backing up” their many claims to their audiences. Dane and Berdard play to the emotions and logical understandings of their audiences in order to convince them of the extent and importance of the issue of Border Control. They committed some logical fallacies and Rhetorical appeals into their articles, very subtly, using other’s quotes, many statistics and different hypothetical examples about how the illegal trafficking of these aliens is now and how it can be either stopped or potentially made worse.
Works Cited
Bedard, Paul. "Deportation By Numbers." U.S. News Digital Weekly 3.35 (2011): 3. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.
Dane, Bob. “Team Obama's Magic Act -- Rise of Deportations Hides Drop in Immigration Enforcement.” Fox News.com. (2011). WEB. 27 Oct. 2011.
Response to "TMI on Facebook"
http://savannahgary.tumblr.com/
Above is the link to a blog written by one of my classmates. It is entitled “TMI on Facebook” which on reading the title I already knew I had to agree. I found her blog completely right on the money with the way some of my friends on Facebook act. She tells about a Facebook friend that she did not really know a whole lot about that post virtually anything to her Facebook, and a lot of the information is personal. She now feels as if she knows everything about this person and that they know each other very well, but they haven’t spoken. I also have a friend that does this; which is why I found her post so interesting. Why some people feel that giving the rest of their friends a blow by blow of their lives is eagerly sought out by their friends, I unfortunately will never understand. I really just hope that the reporting bowl movements does not turn into a norm as this kind of personal information that gets posted. If it does I may just have to bow out respectively.
Sunday
Judged by your Avatar
At any rate, the fact that I decided to make this picture my profile pic and not one of me all “doo-daded-up” with layers and layers of makeup on and all that shows that I am a pretty relaxed person, and I prefer the casual me to the fake me… The way I look when I am having fun is the way I like to be seen to other people… relaxed, interesting, and full of personality. I prefer to give people a look at me that is not picture perfect so they can meet me and see how I am and not just assume who I am through a strange picture perfect façade.
Wednesday
"Mirjana Kentera"
Out of the ten hits that came up on the first page of Google when I put in my name, the majority of them had something to do with me here at Oklahoma State University. The First hit has to do with my Facebook page, the second hit has to do with my church back in California and the different events I was involved in that worked in conjunction with my church. The third has to do with my net vibes account that I made for this class. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh hits all have something to do with different clubs I am involved with here at Oklahoma State. The eighth is about a woman that shares my name, but it has nothing what so ever to do with me. The ninth and tenth are two pages online of two of my friend’s contact or online friends, and I happen to be part of their lists.
My name is not a very common so there are not a lot of people to go through when searching for my name. Based on this information, someone might see that I am religious, involved in my school in many, many, ways, and that the first and second offer other options for people to further their search on me to find whatever it is they are trying to find on me. They will also see that all but one of the hits have to do with me, meaning that there is no mistaking me and my name with anyone else. I am one of a kind!
Monday
Prone to Pathos
First I’d like to take a bit of a closer look at the people on facebook. Who are they? Why are they taking part in it? Do they post a lot? What and why do they post so much or so little? Well obviously people join so that they may connect with family and friends to communicate keep in touch, and share stories and feelings with others they hold dear. In other words, they wish to convey their emotions with others. We may come to the conclusion that a person who does a lot of posting, desires to be heard. We may also assume that a person who decides to share more than what the average person deems to be necessary, that they desire a closeness with different people in their life. People who are content with who they are as a person in real/everyday life do not necessarily feel the need to run to a computer and share their feelings with everyone online. Someone who desires people to be close with must share details with a computer and cannot do it face to face with fellow humans.
So, I don’t see these people as being prone to arguments of pathos. No. I see them as poor souls craving to be heard, or desiring to be close to people because they may or may not be able to do it face to face with the other humans around them. Yes they are “prone to pathos”, but that is in the sense that they are craving emotional contact, to fill the void that they are unable to fill face to face as it should be done.
Tuesday
Have you ever strapped bread to your head?
A good friend of mine posted this picture to my facebook page. I laughed uncontrollably because of the preposterousness of this picture and why anyone would want to do this, or how anyone would even think this would do anything to help them get want they want! I laugh every time I see it now! My friend I’m sure meant it as a joke; just to send me something funny and make me laugh to brighten my day a bit. But that sort of got me thinking, why would someone strap bread to their head? It would indeed be wrong to say that all of the protestors strapped bread to their heads just by seeing this one man feel the need to do it. That I suppose is what we would call a hasty generalization… believing that all the protestors did it because someone took a picture of one man doing it.
This could be just one of those pictures that is taken out of context and a new caption is tacked onto it to just make people laugh. It is not uncommon, which is why I know it is a possibility of it being likely. But then again it could be something cultural. Maybe strapping bread to your head in the streets of Eqypt, does really say something! Maybe by strapping it to your head you are saying “Give me liberty or Give me death!” I doubt it, but I can also say I know next to nothing about modern Egyptian culture…
Saturday
Klugman and the Knife
This is a clip from the movie 12 Angry Men. It is part of the scene in which the jurors are arguing over the alleged knife wound and how it could possibly have been made by the switch blade. Earlier in the film we as the audience learn that Juror #5, was brought up in the same sort of bad neighborhood as the boy who is being tried for murdering his father. So when he says he knows how to use a switch blade, and has experience seeing/watching knife fights, we are assured through ethos that he knows what he is talking about.
In this scene, juror #5, as portrayed by Jack Klugman, is using logos to explain how the accused kid could not have been the one who stabbed is father. He begins by explain the logic in how the knife was made. He demonstrates that the knife was made for and easy open and an upward thrust stab as opposed to switching hands and using it for a downward stab. He then has everyone remember that the boy was experienced with switch knives because of where he lives. Then Juror #5 asks the rhetorical question of: if the kid knew the right way to use the knife, then logically speaking, why would he use it the wrong way? He ends by stating that if the kid was experienced with a switch blade, then he would not have wasted time in switching hands just to use to the wrong way.
Monday
I am My Own Person
In looking at my info sphere, now that I am done compiling all of the websites that I use on a fairly regular basis, I am able to see how they have influence my identity. For example, the types of sites I visit for my entertainment are, I am sure, different as they pertain to each individual person. For me they show that I enjoy a wide spread of entertainment, from stand up to drama. I do not mean however, that it accurately portrays me. Not at all! The only way it could do that was if we were attached, meaning it is my proverbial “third arm” or I cannot go without the internet for more than 2 hrs. I assure u I am completely capable of going without the internet, my cell phone, my iPod, and other such items of the technological nature.
The Internet for me is mainly for my gain. I use it to expound on different ideas or different thoughts that interest me or have sparked some sort of desire to learn or know something. The internet is there to serve me and my personal and or public needs. Because I have found certain sites easier to use than others, of course one could say that it is shaping me to think that way, especially with political websites. It is very hard if not impossible to find a political website without a slant in favor of one side or another. I see myself as my own person. It is hard for anyone or anything to sway me on a way of thinking, or on a certain political view. I think about matters that I find to be important and I do not make amateur decisions on them. In other words I try to be mainly my own person and the Internet doesn’t really influence who I am… I am what I am and I use the internet to help me continue being who I am.
Tuesday
The way we look online should mean a lot to us!
I remember when I first heard about facebook. I told myself it was just another one of those fads. That I shouldn’t get involved in it that if I asked my mom if I could have one that she would say no. It was one of those “myspace” things that is twisted by adults who do not want their children to put any of their information on line. But It took off. Rather than trying to pretend that it wasn’t the way of the future I joined in.
I made a facebook page all about me. I wanted people who didn’t know me to be able to look at my facebook and see who I was, what my interests were, and what I stood for. In a sense I was trying to make a credible page that would portray me as well as I could give people my credentials in person. I think that is what everyone strives to do. They want to make a page that is them. Then with everything they say, everything they like, and everything they do on it is viewed by the rest of the world and it is judged!
Credibility online is really big no a days, considering a lot more of our lives has to do with the Internet. If we do not check up on ourselves and how we look on line to others then people could end up assuming the worst! Even prospective employers use the internet to check up on their future/prospective clients to check their credibility. If they find pictures of u drinking under aged or something else along those lines, it could mean the difference between getting a job and not getting a job. The way we look online should mean a lot to us.
Sunday
Time For Some Campaignin'!!
On YouTube through JibJab.com, I found this video called “Time For some Campaignin’” and thought it was a very good example of Pathos. Pathos is a quality that evokes some kind of emotion from the audience. This video is about the elections of 2008 and 2012 with Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John McCain. The video is for once not one sided, and it makes fun of each one of the main characters and what they have and do stand for. On a bigger picture, it playfully makes fun of the entire voting and campaigning system we have in the US.
By using the clever jingle and the out of proportion little people, it makes the audience want to laugh but at the same time they don’t want to because they want to be able to hear the lyrics to the song. Having each character make fun of the other and yet make fun of them self is also another way of sort of self-deprecation without having the actual people say them, which brings the candidates on more of a human level. Being able to laugh at people unites people and compels them to act together.
It is a satire that compels the audience to laugh and enjoy the well thought out song. In making the audience laugh it is able to “commiserate” with them about the campaigning system and the voting practice. I put commiserate in quotes because they want to make it seem like they r on your side but really they are in a way reminding u that even though the system is stupid you should go out and vote.
Thursday
Understanding Agger’s “Everyday Life In Our Wired World”
In chapter One: “Everyday Life In Our Wired World,” of Ben Agger’s, The Virtual Self: A Contemporary Sociology, Agger discusses the relationship between people’s everyday lives and their social structure. He argues that the self is directly connected to your everyday life, and can be directly connected to the social structure that results therein. He describes the Internet as playing a key role in our social structure and how it “…alters the distinction between self and society.”
“Virtuallity is the experience of being online and using computers; it is a state of being referring to a particular way of experiencing and interacting with the world.” Here Agger speaks to the topic of how the Internet is largely a part of our daily lives. He argues that we need it in order to communicate with the rest of the world. In many ways, Agger goes on to say, the Internet has begun to dictate what we do with our lives. Agger points to the example of: school, work, what we eat, what we buy, schooling, parenting, traveling, etc. The internet, Agger says, is a postmodern world in which people all around the world communicate.
In a sense Agger is using Sociology to better prove his point. “Mine is a different kind of Sociology, one that addresses virtual selves living in postmodern worlds.” Agger would like people to enter this postmodern world and “de-professionalize” sociology by using this world to encourage conversations of sociological insight. In short, use the Internet to share opinions about different things going on in the world today. Being able to enter this postmodern sociological world and being able to go anywhere at any time, Agger calls worldliness. The Internet talks about many different topics from all over the world, and for a person to go on and engage in a conversation of sociological insight on any topic at any time, shows this person’s “saturation to popular culture.”
Though we are in a very progressive age Agger, was able to argue that “…our moment in civilization is perhaps less postmodern than meets eye as a result of ‘fast capitalism.’” According to Agger it makes sense for people to go online and talk about their everyday routines, but there can be certain things that can unsettle or as Agger said “jolt” the everydayness. A jolt could be any of the following: war, natural disaster, the economy, etc. It is because of these jolts that Agger says that our moment in time is not as postmodern as it could be. Agger discusses some of the “jolts” that went on in his life time; from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and his brother to the more recent September 11th disaster.”
With all that is happening in the world, all these “jolts” that we run into, all the media and online sociological conversations of insight, Agger explains that it is hard to comprehend how we have any order at all. Agger then uses his definition of Social repression to explain the origin of the social order that we have. “Surplus repression goes beyond what is necessary for peaceful coexistence; it bends people’s creative energies in destructive and self-destructive directions, thus creating the existing social order.” So in a sense, Agger is attempting to explain that naturally people as a group strive for order, and end up achieving it through a sort of chaos.
Agger then goes on to “examine the relationship between everyday life and enveloping social structure[s]” in our society as a whole.” He goes on to discuss how structure does not just happen, but rather, as we mentioned viz., it works through the self which in turn recreates the order that we seek. But then Agger states, that in the same way, the self is able to “disobey social laws, overthrowing them through the force of will and leverage of social movements.” So, in a way, the self is able to make or break us (to borrow the colloquialism) in the way that we can use it to create or, on the other hand, destroy social structure by getting involved in a “jolt” (viz.) that may cause some social tension on the Internet and/or in society.
“Everyday life plays a crucial role in people’s diversion from politics… they are discouraged from theorizing their everyday lives which are influenced by these powerful yet invisible structures.” All Agger is saying here is that a person’s first inclination is not to go online and start “chatting” about world or local politics; it simply does not come natural to a person. Unless of course, these politics are somehow connected to a “jolt” that directly influences that person’s life in some way that allows them to want/need to engage in a sociological conversation in the postmodern world we call the Internet.
In short, Agger has used the postmodern Internet as a way of showing and discussing the relationship between the everyday lives of people online or not, and their social structure. So from reading this we see that the Internet, though we often times take it for granted, plays a crucial role in how we formulate or destroy our social structure through the self, as it pertains to the goings on around us in the world.
Works Cited
Agger, Ben. The Virtual Self: A Contemporary Sociology, Chapter One : “Everyday Life In Our Wired World”. Chinchester, Wiley-Blackwell, Dec. 18 2007. Print.
Tuesday
What's in your Infosphere?
In Michael Vlahos’ “Entering the Infosphere”, he defines the info sphere as being “… the shorthand for the fusion all the world’s communication networks, databases and sources of information, into a vast and intertwined and heterogeneous tapestry of electronic interchange.” (Vlaho’s 2) The way I would describe it to make it clearer would be to say: picture your selft inside a giant bubble. Now think about all the internet sites you visit, all the social networks you chat on, and all the places you visit for just fun, or for shopping. Now picture all of those sites around your bubble. This is sort of a picture of what Vlahos’ Infosphere would look like.
I agree with his definition of Infosphere. I do not know a whole lot about it right now, but from what I have learned both in the classroom, and out, the infosphere encompasses you and the things that you do each day. As it becomes more popular, more and more activities will be added to our infospheres because they will be available to us online. Vlahos’ opinion, of which I agree, is that soon our infosphere will be of great importance to our everyday lives, even more than it is now.
Vlahos predicted that in the future people will be able to conduct business, and do their work, and conduct their activities on their Infosphere. I agree with this however he goes on to say that eventually be able to meet with a doctor through our infosphere also, and I thought this was just absurd! How is a doctor supposed to make a diagnosis when you are not face to face with them? I do not see it working. But he is right when he said that people will be able to gather and share information on it, because that is sort of what we are doing right now. We are not far from most activities being conducted on and through our infospheres.
Meta-Awareness
Meta-Awareness
Last week, our class discussed meta- awareness, and our professor posed questions about writing and how we write and what has to be going on while we do it. Personally, I have a number of quirks, and downfalls when it comes to writing, but it all depends on what kind of writing I am doing. I have three main categories of writing that I do: 1) School (essays, lab write-ups… etc.), 2) Novel (fictional story I write in my spare time), 3) Fun! (short skits/ plays, short stories, sketches… etc.)
For school, I have to write it strait on the computer; no hard copy writing. Because it is school work, I will allow anything to distract me, so it helps if I get out of my room and go to a place where there is hustle and bustle. Any dining area is good or the Colvin Center. I have to be listening to music, but it can’t be anything with words so I usually listen to movie soundtracks. It doesn’t matter what I am drinking, but I cannot have any food nearby or else I will only want to eat it, but I cannot be hungry or else I will only think about how hungry I am! It does not matter what time of day I decide to do this as long as I am focused the quality of work will be the same at all times of the day.
In writing my novel and when I am just writing for fun is when I get pretty anal-retentive. Everything HAS to be perfect. It has to be quiet, soft classical music has to be playing, and my hands have to be clean. I care about this writing so much more than my school work in the sense that I am potentially writing this for others for more than one reading, as opposed to a peer edit (one read) and a grade from the teacher/professor (one read). The time of day really depends on when I have a spark of creativity, because when I have it I have to write everything down or else I my lose it until I get another spark like that, which could be as long as a month or two in the future.
I have quite a number of quirks but in a way they help me produce my best work, so I find myself catering to them when I need good quality work.
Web 2.0: Leading Us Into The Dark
In several Articles read in class and out, they have talked mainly about Web 2.0 and some of its interesting qualities. In Andrew Keen’s book, The Cult of the Amateur, Keen suggests that this Web 2.0 has a dark side to it as well. However, in his first chapter, “The Great Seduction, Keen’s argument is only the small beginnings of his main argument. Throughout, Keen uses the argument of cause to help him make his points. In Chapter 1, he argues that Web 2.0, rather than giving us in depth analysis of the world around us, is instead dishing out a “superficial observation”. Here Keen refers to the “Amateur” on the web, and how anyone is capable of writing about a news story, but only some should be allowed to; for only some are more than an artificial reflection. This, Keen says is all thanks to democratization which is now “undermining truth” and “belittling expertise”. Here we see an example of argument of cause. By allowing amateurs to write, we are giving up the need/want for expertise in our news stories today. But how? How can democratization, the floor that our own country stands on, be responsible for this? In short it is because, we are creating a world where “author and audience are increasingly undistinguishable and authenticity is almost impossible to verify”. Here Keen uses the argument of cause once again: Because of democratization, it is now hard to differentiate between author and audience. And not being able to differentiate between the two, is leading us blindly into the dark.
Monday
Web 2.0... Curious?
"You--Yes, You--Are TIME's Person of the Year" by Lev Grossman talks mainly about how something called Web 2.0 and how its birth on this planet is supposed to allow the common people communicate with each other. "This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding,” Grossman said, “not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person." My way of thinking might be old fashioned but I’ve always thought that this was the best way to share information; from person to person, so each one can add their own commentary to the news that they want to share. Much like what many of us are doing with this blog. We either picked an article, or in my case, were assigned an article, and we are passing on the information, “person to person”, accompanied by our own commentary that is often informal, so that the general masses may better understand it. It was also interesting to notice that Grossman’s article itself was written in an informal tone. I believe he did this so that he could distribute his news to people like me, and others in my class, in a way that was easy to understand, so that my classmates and I could pass it on in our own way. I agree with Grossman, I myself am curious as to “who’s out there looking back at” me. Yes, he is right it could fail, but really when you make internet news open for the people to critique and pass it on, would people really pass that up? I wouldn’t…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)