Excuse Me...A Little Privacy?

Privacy is arguably one of the most hotly discussed topics in the rhetoric of the internet.  Interestingly though, most everyday internet users don't give it a lot of thought or take the proper steps to ensure that their privacy is being protected.  Many think it is a simple as saying, "Hey, don't look at my shit."  However, that is not sufficient.  The fact of the matter is, most people overlook the privacy statements given by individual websites.  Pretty much anytime you join a website (especially a social media network), you will be asked to look over a Privacy Statement or a Terms of Service (many of which include info on privacy policies) and select a box that says, "I have read and agree."  Admit it, you skim over this without really reading anything; you just scroll down and check "I agree" and move on.  I'll be honest.  I do it too.  Well, if you're going to do that, don't bitch and complain about your privacy being infringed upon and claim "but I didn't know!"  If you're truly concerned about your privacy on a given website, look down around the bottom of the page.  Chances are there is a "Privacy Policy" or "Privacy Statement" link. Also, on social media, make sure that you are customizing privacy settings.  Although, as many of you who use Facebook know, those don't always work.  The most recent update to the networking giant included a newsfeed that pretty much ignores all privacy settings and will post your crap on the feed of pretty much anyone who is even remotely connected to you by mutual acquaintances, groups, etc.  There is a reason this thing has been dubbed the "stalker feed."  So if there is something you don't want others to know, don't post it.  Keep that stuff for private messages.

Websites aren't the only ones capable of getting ahold of things you'd rather keep to yourself.  Internet service providers often track where you're going and what you're doing.  While they're doing this primarily to improve your online experience by offering catered ads or remember you're most frequented sites, there is still some information you may not want them having.  Oh, and clicking "private browsing" or "incognito mode" doesn't really make you invisible.  They're still logging things, just not where you or others on your computer can see them.  So, if privacy is a major concern for you, read up before select an internet provider.

Another online entity that is harvesting your information may be the most dangerous of all: Your peers.  When it's on Facebook, it's pretty much fair game.  Be careful of what you post; you never know who is going to try and stockpile it.  Yes, I have had someone copy and paste my statuses to a word document to try to use them against me (FYI: didn't work).  And another individual (who I wasn't even friends with) started taking my photos and using them as his profile picture.  When I called him out on it, I got the response, "Well, when you put something on the internet, it becomes everyone's property."  Um, no, it doesn't work that way.  It's my face.  I own it.  After that incident, I put my profile on private, which, by the way, folks, isn't entirely private.  There are ways around it.

So in conclusion: If you want 100% total privacy on the internet, stay off of it.  There is no such thing.  If you want to browse the internet wisely then checkout the privacy statements of the sites you use, configure your settings, and be judicious of what information you put out there.

Closed for Renovations

One of the goals of my Digital Literacy course, for which I am making this blog, is to increase awareness thereof and effective usage of the related tools.  In order to meet this goal, Steph is constantly pointing us in the way of resources that will increase our awareness and understanding of design, HTML, and other technical aspects.  This week she has shared with us an article in two parts aptly titled "Principles for Good Blog Design." (don't forget Part 2)

The article contains briefs of seven important elements of a good blog.  I was actually quite surprised to read that I had already incorporated almost all of them into my blog.  However, I was missing one.  And that one, I feel, is quite important; and that is visual appeal.  When I created the blog, I wanted the design to be simple; however, as I have worked with it over the past few weeks I have discovered that it was simple the point of boring.  It was done entirely in neutral colors, which was just bland and the complete opposite of my personality.  So I decided, as you have probably noticed, to change the color scheme.  I feel that now it is a lot more appealing to a reader.  It is energetic and a little spunky, not dark and down-putting.

Scarecrow says, "Looks like fall!"

ADHD Ramblings!

I'm really enjoying this weather

It feels like fall - IT'S ALMOST FALL!

I love the fall!!!

It's like the spring only in reverse!

Fall brings some of the greatest things in the world

These things include but are not limited to:

• HALLOWEEN!
• Pumpkins lattes!
• Pumpkin pie!
• Pumpkin cookies
• OK, pretty much everything pumpkin -
• Even mellocreme pumpkins
• You know, those waxy candies that don't even taste like pumpkin
• You want to know a secret?
• - THERE IS TOTALLY A DUCK IN THAT POND -
• That wasn't the secret.
• I'm listening to High School Musical on my iPod
• That was the secret

I am super pumped for The Rocky Horror Picture Show!

You should totally audition for the Shadow Cast!!!

I had like the best time at the Wizard of Oz Festival!!!!!!

Did I use too many "!"?

No!

There can never be too many!!!

ADHD Scarecrow has ADHD!

Problematic Polemic

OK, I know most of you are probably wondering, "What the heck is polemic?"

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, polemic is

"A controversial argument; a strong verbal or written attack on a person, opinion, doctrine, etc.; (as a mass noun) writing or opinion of this kind. Also: (in sing. and pl.) aggressive debate or controversy; the practice of engaging in such debate."

Now you might be wondering what this "controversial argument" to which I refer is.  I am referring to the polemic of computer/technological literacy.  Is it good?  Is it bad?  Is it neither?  Well, Cynthia L. Selfe shares both sides of the argument in her book Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention.  

One side of the argument sees technology as a "boon."  That is technology can be something really great.  This is provided, of course, the technology is in the right hands.  If so, it can be used a tool for discovery and academia and, quite honestly, a countless number of possibilities to better human life and society.  The negative side, however, sees this computer literacy as a "bane."  This view holds that technologies such as the internet are nothing more than a "distraction" or a harmful, parasitic meme that is spreading itself around and causing damage to our society.  

See, even the nicest things can be used for evil.

Of course, nothing is ever truly "black and white."  As Selfe points out, there is some truth to both sides.  It is not simply one or the other, depending on who is using this technology and for what purpose deems it is either beneficial or harmful.  I agree with this idea.  I don't believe that something can ever be completely good or completely bad.  There are several factors at any given moment that can shift technology from one side to the other.

From what I have read, it appears that many people are strongly biased to one side of the argument or the other.  They refuse to see things from the other point of view.  Therefore, I believe the true problem here is not whether technology is good or bad, but that people get so stubborn on the issue that they cause more problems arguing than the topic they're arguing over.

I Know, It's Like the Apocalypse!

Don't Panic!

You can indeed survive in this crazy, tech-filled world without the internet or social media. A classmate of mine recently posted a blog about things we can do to break away from the social media "chains that bind."  I highly suggest that you head on over to Katie's blog and check out "Cutting the Cord." This well-written piece is quick and concise and features some background information on the topic, tips for disconnecting, and a little bit on taking control of our time online.

My Take

Social media and e-mail can be habit-forming. In fact, many of us develop online routines that we go through everyday without really ever giving it any thought. I can attest that this is very true for me. The first thing I do every morning is check my AOL mail, see what's happening on Facebook, read my BSU e-mail, and, very often, check in on my Ebay auctions (but that's a whole other problem altogether).

In her blog, Katie list instant gratification as a reason many people love social media. This is also true for me. When I post on Facebook, I do so because I want almost immediate results. There are even times I find myself checking back every few minutes for updates. I honestly believe that I sometimes do it just because it's there and I can. Whenever I am away from my computer for a day or so, I usually don't have too much of a withdrawal. In fact, I sometimes find my time without social media more relaxing. Because, let's be honest, the internet is not only a gateway to communication and connection with friends and family but also a gateway to all their problems and drama. The one downside I find to staying offline too long is that I alway seem to come back to over 100 e-mails or so after being away for only a weekend.

So, you may ask, could I ever do without social media altogether? Well, the answer is quite simple.

No.

So, how about you all? Social media - Good? Bad? Could you ever disconnect?

Ramblings on Language and the Way We Think

Last week we discussed rhetoric and how it is used to shape what we think.  This week, we are moving onto inquiry paradigms or how we think.  However, the purpose of this blog is not to discuss this directly, so if you want a good article that explains what inquiry paradigms are and how they work, I highly suggest taking a look at this article by Janet Emig.  Today, I would like to discuss another article, which is related to inquiry paradigms.  The article I would like to discuss is "How Does Language Shape the Way We Think?" by Lera Boroditsky.

Take a look at this photo.  Is this object masculine or feminine?
Depending on your native language, your view may differ from others.

I found this particular article to be simply fascinating.  In it, the author explores that idea that language is not shaped by how we think.  Instead, she holds that how we think may in fact be formulated by the way we use language.  Boroditsky uses evidence from a study conducted on individuals who speak different languages.  This study showed that based on what language the subject spoke, he or she viewed the idea of direction and order different.  In the individual was used to reading left-to-right, he or she would arrange events in that direction, likewise for individuals who read right-to-left.  Of course, this is something that I had expected; however, I did not expect that some would arrange events east-to-west regardless of how he or she was seated.  The article also discusses how most romantic languages assign gender to objects.  Now, this is something that many would not think twice about; however, studies showed that the gender of an object not only effect pronoun and verb usage but it also affected how individuals view and describe the object altogether.  Such evidence shows that thinking and language are very closely connected.  I also feel that the idea that language influences thinking is highly valid.  An object may be masculine in one language yet feminine in another.  This shows that thinking is not the same across cultures.  After all, if something were truth or 100% finite, it wouldn't change across language barriers, would it?  However, the fact that not everyone sees objects the same way should be taken as an indication that the human mind does create language based on ideas but that ideas are created based on language.

I was able to very easily follow Boroditsky's ideas and understand what she was saying in her article.  As a bilingual individual, I knew exactly what she was talking about.  In English, most objects do not have a gender; they are neuter.  We refer to these objects with the pronoun "it."  Men and women, on the other hand, are given gender and are assigned he and she or his and hers, respectively.  However, Spanish is a whole other story.  Everything has a gender.  A bed ("la cama"), which is soft and peaceful, is feminine, denoted by the article "la" and ending in the feminine suffice of "a."  Whereas a car ("el carro" or "el coche"), which is loud, strongly built, and dangerous, is masculine, using the pronoun "el." Going beyond gender, there are several other grammatical rules that are very different than English, which leads me to believe their conceptualization of various aspects of the world differ greatly from those in the English-speaking world.  If there is one thing I learned throughout my time taking Spanish courses, it is that you absolutely must switch the your frame of mind from one language to the other.  If you try to think English and speak Spanish it will not work and vice versa.  That is why texts that are directly translated from one language to another are sometimes confusing.  They are not just two different ways of saying something, they are two different ways of thinking about it.  Therefore, translation must not look at what the words are but instead pay attention to what the words mean.


In conclusion, language is the governing factor in how we think.  As we discussed in our post on rhetoric, it is a device used to persuade the way one thinks.  Therefore, anytime we use language or rhetoric, we are constructing meaning; we are persuading the way we and others think.

Rhetorical Ramblings

"It's good to see me, Isn't it?  No need to respond; that was rhetorical!"

One hell of a rhetorician

Um...Glinda...what exactly does that mean?  Well, I guess rhetoric can be a little tricky to define.  For example, the New Oxford American Dictionary defines the term "rhetorical" (when applied to a question) as being "asked in order to produce an effect or make a statement rather than illicit information."  Now, that doesn't seem very rhetorical at all!  After all, rhetoric is often thought to be "Situated, strategic discourse," or a quest for knowledge.  However, the N.O.A. Dictionary defines rhetoric as "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, esp. the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques."  OK, when you put it that way, I think I can see what Glinda is getting at.  She is persuading the people that they are happy to see her.  So rhetoric is really just persuasion, right?  Not quite.  

You see, rhetoric is quite a loaded term; and it would appear that many people hold different ideas of what it means exactly.  Dictionary.com gives us eight (!) definitions for the term:

1.

(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

2.

the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.

3.

the study of the effective use of language.

4.

the ability to use language effectively.

5.

the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.

6.

the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.

7.

(in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.

8.

(in older use) a work on rhetoric.

Uh, Glinda, you're going over our heads here...

With all these definitions floating around, it's easy to see why so many are confused as to what rhetoric actually is.  In my personal belief, definitions three and four are the most appropriate, especially when we put the most common ideas about rhetoric together.  Going back to the original definition we find the word "discourse," which N.O.A. Dictionary tells us is "communication or debate."  OK, so we see the idea of communication permeating pretty much every definition.  We also see debate or persuasion.  So, I think it's pretty safe to assume that rhetoric is the act of conveying or sharing knowledge or information, and, in order to do so, we must use language effectively.

OK, so the New Zachary American Diction defines rhetoric as "The ability to use language effectively to convey an idea and/or persuade others to subscribe to said idea, and the study thereof."

Of course, there is a lot of academic study on the subject of rhetoric.  In a way, this rhetoric in itself - metarhetoric, if you will. In his article "Three Meanings of Epistemic Rhetoric," Barry Brummett lays out different ways that rhetoric may be epistemic.  These three modes are methodological, sociological, and ontological.  The first meaning states that rhetoric is the quest for knowledge or truth.  It also implies that rhetoric cannot be a subject matter all its own, but instead is a way of exploring other subject matter.  The sociological view, however, makes the claim that rhetoric is indeed its own subject matter and that it not only the quest for truth and knowledge but the creation thereof.  This view holds that rhetoric is best applied to human constructs like politics, religion, morals, laws, et.c  We makeup these ideas and, therefore, the pertaining truths.  The final meaning is ontological, or the belief that rhetoric not only creates truth and knowledge, but reality.  It implies that world has no inherit meaning; everything has meaning because we place it there.

"Only bad witches are ugly." = Rhetoric

Now, let's take a look at rhetoric in action.  I am going to keep with photo theme we've got going here and use an example that 99% of Americans will recognize.  In the movie The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy is transported to a new world.  She methodologically seeks out the truth.  She asks questions in order to illicit the information she needs.  Glinda the Good Witch shows up in a giant bubble (that's one hell of a first impression).  She's uses her rhetoric skills to convince Dorothy that the only way to get back to Kansas is seek out the wonderful Wizard of Oz.  In this scenario, Dorothy is in a strange place where she comes face-to-face with someone who knows this world and the truths thereof.  The little girl buys into the Good Witch's words and sets out on this journey, believing up until the very end that this Wizard really did have the power.  Why?  Because, because, because, because this idea is brought up in discourse several times throughout the story and she keeps coming back to the "truth" that the Wizard is the only way home.  This can be seen as the sociological meaning of rhetoric.  The Wizard is powerful because the people make it so.  

Of course, at the end she finds out that this is not true; showing that sociological rhetoric is fallible.  However, the Wizard is quite the rhetorician himself.  He gives the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion a brain, a heart, and courage, respectively.  This are just artifacts, but he makes them out to be the real thing.  He constructs the reality of the situation himself through persuasive speech - an example of ontological rhetoric.  In the end, Glinda shows up and tells Dorothy that she can now use her Ruby Slippers to return home because she has learned a valuable lesson.  Is that true?  Not really.  The Slippers could have taken her home anytime but Glinda is just convincing enough to make Dorothy buy into it.  OK, so maybe rhetoric really is a complex form of persuasion.    

The Space Cadet and the Onion

I'm feeling a bit exhausted this week.  Sure, three-day weekends seem like a time for rest...not when you're having 6-rehearsals for an original musical and crunching to finish costumes for a Wizard of Oz Festival. That being said, it's times like these where I like to let my mind just float off into space.  This morning, I found myself attempting to read the news; it just wasn't working.  All the articles were downbeat.  So, I let myself wander over to The Onion.  There I found this interesting little article: Fax Machines Still Pretty Impressive If You Think About It.

Looks pretty useful to me.

Now, if you're not familiar with The Onion, it is more-or-less a satirical newspaper.  However, it's not all baseless jokes.  In fact, there often tends to be an ironic or funny-because-it's-true idea behind the article.  In the case of this particular piece, they do actually make a decent point.  No, seriously, think about it.  Fax machines really are still useful.  Not to mention they are actually more efficient than some modern technologies.  Say you want to send a letter.  You can be "tech savvy" and scan the paper, put it into PDF, e-mail it, upload it to Google Docs, drop it in Dropbox, send it to iLocker, and a multitude of other things.  Yes, that's all very well.  OR you could just take the letter, stick it in the tray, dial a number, and hit send.  Boom, boom, done.  I hear people complain that faxes are obsolete because they run on dial-up and take longer to send than an e-mail.  However, it astounds me that they fail to realize all-in-all, this dial-up process takes a significantly less amount of time than the whole process required to do the same action on a computer.  Besides, you don't have to sit there and watch the machine.  You can hit send and then go, I don't know, make a cup of coffee, go to the restroom, check your e-mail, whatever.  Or, if you're really all that tech savvy, set up your fax machine to run on a broadband line.

Eh, not so much...

OK, OK, I'm not just rambling about fax machines.  I have a point here.  What I'm saying is, don't rule out forms of technology just because they're older.  If they're still practical and useful, use them.  For example, I have a digital sewing machine that I use for all my costume making but I know a seamstress who is still using an old Kenwood sewing  machine from the late 1970's.  When asked why she doesn't just invest in a new model she responded, "This one works just fine."  I also know people who prefer a Sega Genesis or Super Nintendo to a PS3 or an X-Box 360.  Sometimes oldies are goodies.  If they're still around, there's probably a reason for it.  If something truly is obsolete, they'll disappear or find their way into antique stores.  Go into Best Buy and you'll find a fax machine but when was the last time you saw a BetaMax player there?  Huh?  Yeah.  Now, I think I'm gonna go get some tacos.

-The Space Cadet

PS - What says you?  Comment below.

"...And who are you?"

Have you ever read The Medium is the Massage (No, that's not a typo...at least not on my part) by Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore?  Well, let me tell you, it's a trip and a half.  It is chock full of non-sequitur, if not downright bizarre, images.  However, after carefully reading the text, I found the book is actually a lot of interesting ideas.  Probably one of the best labels for this book is "thought-provoking."

Basically what this book is about is media, how it can influence those who use it, and how it is virtually reshaping the way we live.  Although this book was originally written and published in the 1960's, it is still quite relevant in this day and age.  Apparently, the original title was to be The Medium is the Message, but a misprint influenced McLuhan to change the title.  Now, this title alone is quite indicative of the idea the book is trying to express.  A medium isn't just how we say something these days, it is what we're saying.  If you change the medium, you change the message.

It's best we just don't ask questions

A classmate of mine recently made a comment about how it seems McLuhan had an idea that he wanted to put down as quickly as possible before he lost it.  While I can see how it may seem this way, my close reading leads me to believe that the brevity and sometimes vagueness of this book is entirely intentional.  It is my thinking that this books was never intended to be an answer or an explanations, but an instigator of thought and conversation.  We are supposed to explore and create our own meanings.  A few times throughout the book, McLuhan quotes Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.  Now, there is little doubt that this story in itself was meant as a social commentary (some provide that it was a protest to modern mathematics) or a though-provoker.  Toward the end of Medium (pg. 153-154), McLuhan gives us a quote from Carroll's book:

"...And who are you?"  This part of the book really grabbed me.  Who are we?  Do we really know the complete, full answer to that?  Alice's response really got me thinking.  Does technology change who we are?  Honestly, to me there seems little doubt.  We may be one person when we get up in the morning, but when we enter that Wonderland of the Internet, we may change several times.  In the anonymity of the internet, someone may become more argumentative or give less thought to what they're saying before they do so.  A normally timid and shy person may become an opinionated columnist, blogger, or forum member.  A real-life doer may become simply an observer.  On the internet, we can be whoever we want to be.  We adopt a persona and, in many cases, our internet selves take on a new life of their own.  For some, they may even have several online personas.  

Of course, the internet is not the only place for this to happen.  Before the invention of the world-wide web there were ghost writers, pirate radio stations, and several other media outlets for individuals to become someone else.  This is an idea that I honestly gave very little thought to, but once McLuhan brought up the subject, it sparked a lot of thought.  And the fact that he can do this over the span of about four decades is simply astounding.  The "vagueness" of this book is what allows it to transcend time.  It is more than possible that this book may retain is relevance over the next four decades and on.  This book is fuel for the fire of thought.

If you have not yet read Medium, I highly encourage you to pick up a copy and give it a read.  For those of you who have read it, feel free to share your thoughts.  Better yet, how about you attempt to answer me this one questions "...Who are you?"