HOLY COW! My jaw sure did drop when I watched Alexandra
Wallace’s video. She had an idea, or
annoyance, and went with it. Posting a
video like that is definitely doing to gather an audience – both supporters and
not.
And so the online ‘conversation’ begins...
Alexandra put out an idea and her audience (intended or not)
replied. The Ching Chong Song made light
of the matter (mostly) while the other one did her best to call Wallace
out. Each of these responses soon had
their own, separate audiences for a multitude of reasons. The three videos, together, ultimately
created one big, massive mess of an ‘internet community’ that is made up of all
types of ages groups, socio economic groups, and cultural groups from all over
the nation, and the world.
What other communicative technology has that kind of power
and capability?
What I’m trying to say is, that the readings and the videos
for this week really got me to start thinking about online communication and
how very odd it is. I’ve really started
paying attention reading and paying attention to the comments that people post
on online newspapers and news articles.
Not because I’m interested in what they have to say, but because I’m
interested in what they have to say to EACH OTHER.
People get into some serious bitching matches in the comment
sections of these web articles with personal opinions, political views…etc. While reading through them I can’t help but
laugh and think about the argument that these people are having…with the
internet, on the internet, with people who they don’t know anything about
besides their web name and what they said.
I’d be willing to bet that the people who get into these matches on the
internet would NEVER say the exact same words (or name calling strategies) to
the person they’re arguing with to their face.
The arguments on the internet and arguments in person have
extremely different consequences and outcomes.
In person, the argument happens within minutes, and if you make the
other person mad enough they can hit you…and more importantly identify
you. Arguments on newspaper comments are
generally pretty anonymous and lack the type of personal responsibility that
personal communications hold.
I also enjoyed thinking about data and visuals working
together to make data easier to understand.
I’m a visual learning and absolutely hate when straight up percentages
are given, or even just set amounts; SHOWING people what the numbers are
talking about makes for a much less confused audience.
Jodi, I tried your link, but it seemed to be broken. I believe it was a picture with text. If so I think I got the gist of it – some kid or group of kids with developmental disabilities running, with the words in the link title set somewhere in the picture. Is that correct?
ReplyDeleteI think this brings up some great points about rhetoric and what we've been discussing this week. What one person might think is humorous, like “ching-chong” or “retarded,” others might find offensive. I think it's interesting that humor is different in different contexts. In the context of a website like funnyjunk.com, it might not be as offensive. It's full of off-color humor. And I have the option of never visiting that website again if I feel offended by their idea of funny. But walking around with a placard with that kind of saying at, let's say the Special Olympics state games, would be horribly offensive.
Perhaps more relevant to our discussion is how posting links, videos, pictures, etc. affects the rhetorical situation. Is a link words? Ideas? Since it is merely “embedded” or “linked to” other writing, does it bring with it the same persuasion as the rest of our writing? When we bring other material into our own rhetoric does it become our rhetoric?
Yep, definately didn't mean that one. THANKS! for letting me know...
ReplyDeleteWoops! That is funny. Now it brings up even MORE interesting points about online rhetoric. See you most recent post for more...
ReplyDelete