Genreffic. Responding to a Prompt or Two

Q: To what extent can you see the "complicated intersections" of genre and the "irrational/logical" explanations play out in the public sphere, especially as that sphere "works" online (in blogs, websites, news sites, etc.)?

I'd say that genres are definitely mixed all the time within various spheres online. I do consider various media different genres, as they require such different approaches to be handled correctly. Film has certain do's and don't's that might intersect with those of writing an essay, but they don't perfectly coincide. The same goes for other mediums as well. And you really don't have any other field that combines so many different mediums/genres like you do on the internet. Blogs might use a video, or a chunk of text, or even combine the two. Podcasts often rely completely on sound so tone and and timbre become the forefront and other aspects are ignored. Photography is another big one that has a significant role online that is used in conjunction with many other genres but is also very capable of evoking a lot all by itself. And just as these various mediums serve as genres in their own right, each of them as its own independent sphere has many sub-genres inherent within them.

I'm almost tempted to argue that irrational explanations almost outweigh the logical (just look at Youtube comments or any responses to a political blog). However, that would be unfair as there is a lot of well thought out and intellectual material present as well. While there are occasions where the logical and irrational very much beat each other down into such a state that neither is worth digging through for meaning, sometimes the tension between them creates the possibility of discovering a new angle, switching sides, or even finding evidence to support your original thoughts.



Q: How might we productively and deliberately use different genres (and rational/irrational explanations) online to help us portray the "truth" of an ongoing situation?

I think that the combination of irrational and rational explanations is the only way that we can really discover the truth of a situation. Just like you can't really claim that a certain store has the best price in town for a product if you haven't, indeed, encountered the prices offered from any other stores. Irrational explanations might help motivate (rather by stirring anger or more positive passions) whereas logical explanations will help strengthen causes and direct the flow of emotion. Sometimes pictures and videos can do more than just the written word. Seeing a starved child withering away is much more effective to most people than just encountering a sentence that attempts to describe it. Occasionally a song might be better suited to rally people to a cause than a few pictures could. Oftentimes more viable evidence can be provided in an essay or report than any tune could carry. They are tools that can work independently or together. There is almost never a right tool for any single occasion, but rather it depends on the artist crafting the communication.


The truth is almost never wholly revealed by any one source. Rather, it is by the combination of varied communications that we, as receptors of the truth, can begin to paint its image more clearly.

Juarez

Continuing the spirit of many of the class blogs, I too was quite sickened by the events happening in Ciudad Juárez as portrayed in the documentary.


However, I think the part that made me feel the worst was when the FBI went done to investigate, but since they only found eight bodies instead of two hundred they left.


Now, I understand that we can't just sent the FBI out willy-nilly, but I feel like helping out Mexico would have been a worthwhile investment politically, and that's not even considering the moralistic ramifications. When that sort of thing is happening just across the border I feel we are politically justified in offering aid. I feel that our cooperation and services could better the condition of the city and make it a safer place for all the women (and men) that live there.



Now, this next bit is very biased from my personal opinion, so I understand if you feel differently. Recently it seems like our government has been making politically unstable moves and moving into situations that we aren't really capable of handling because our motives are either vague or unrealistic. For most of the activity in the Middle East I know that both many of my associates and I were never really sure why we were where we were or what we were trying to accomplish there. Look at all the money, resources and manpower that went into (and continues to go into) that.

Now think about Juárez. We know what the problem is and we have people that are good at solving those sorts of problems. If the local government agreed, we could delegate some task forces to go in there and help solve the problem.


I don't deny that I'm making many political simplifications and taking a lot of the grey out the situation, but I really do feel that that would be an action that I'd be proud to see my nation take.


How do you feel?

A good citizen, city and life.

A good citizen is supposed to involve in public issues and try to be interested in that. That is all the author talks about. If people only care about their business and are indifferent what is going on the society, the city could not be a good city. And the citizen could not live satisfied life in the city. Since every people cannot participate in politic directly, citizens should be concerned about public issues and voice their opinion. Some people just complain the political affairs when they don’t even vote. If somebody does not go to the polls, they might lose the right that get involved in politics and complain. When every citizen takes part in politics in either way indirectly and directly, a good city can be built up and the citizen can enjoy their good life.

I guess Warner's point is..

Warner’s point is an individual becomes subject when he or she enters the public sphere. He says “public opinion is understood as belonging to a public rather than to scattered individuals. So it is only meaningful to speak of public discourse where it is understood as the discourse of a public rather than as an expansive dialogue among separate persons.” In order to do that, he suggests people to be idealized public speaker, identified as self-abstraction. , that represent people. When they voice opinion in counter sphere, they are not private individual anymore.

Even after I read the Warner's writing, I couldn't understand his point. So, I put "guess" on the title. I do not like to read that kind of complicate writing that make the point ambiguous and hard to understand.

Dear eCitizens,

This is about privacy. It doesn't get any less important online. Arguably it becomes even more important.


Some people (I included) believe that once anything of value is released online, it's there forever. Files, photos, phone numbers, anything. The internet has shrunk the world to a manageable level. Unlike any other point in the history of the world has someone been able to connect themselves globally practically instantly. Once something gets out somebody can save it / share it  / replicate it. Once something gets out it belongs to the online world.


So how do we get these things back? How do we round up information we've accidentally released into cyberspace? The answer is simple: we can't. Despite the stories you hear of people with cash (celebrities come to mind) getting their sensitive content (like nude photos)  offline and gone forever, it's a fairy tale to appease the posh. Those files are still out there somewhere and they can be shared and spread all around the world again.


The only way we can really stop people from spreading our private information around is by not letting it out in the first place. To prevent an outbreak you have to get to the source, and we are each our own focal point. It's true that sometimes information is stolen, and that is out of our control. However, the majority of sensitive information lost and sold is given with our own consent.



Read terms before you agree. If you find the terms are confusedly written, rally with others of like mind and petition for simpler terms. If you find a violation of privacy in a contract, rally with those who agree and fight for your information. It takes the conscious effort of individuals bringing the fruits of their separate labors together to keep the system fair and just. There will always be those looking to rob us of what's rightfully ours, but we don't have to keep making it so easy for them.

Club Activity Survey

Have you ever thought about club activity at CSUSB? Have you ever complained about that?
What is the problem of this issue? Get involve in this issue !

Click this link and answer the questions please. It will take only 1minute. The result of this survery will be used to resolve the issue. Thank you :D

https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEwtbjhNVHkwSGo1OWdOMjZhbFh0SVE6MQ

Habermas v Warner

Here's a comic I drew for a comparative look at the Habermas and Warner readings.
(click for larger pic)

Interesting...

The privacy section of the Capitalism Magazine website linked to in my previous post (see previous post) no longer works.


Bad programming, or shameful conspiracy?



Probably "C. None of the above", but it is interesting, nonetheless.



EDIT: For all those who voted C, congrats. The link works once again. Order is restored.