I thought the mentioning of philosophers believing that sophists were teaching people how to lie was interesting. Initially, I didn’t really think of trolling to be a form of falsehood. After some thought however, it does seem somewhat feasible. Of course that part of the article was referring to people who lived long before we had the modern examples of trolling, but it can still apply. Looking at the examples within the article, the image of Gandalf stating a quote from Yoda as attributed to Dumbledore is technically three lies in one. The purpose is the difference; this image wasn’t made with the intention of misleading people (although my mother, notorious for being unsavvy in the realm of popular culture, would certainly be misled), but to annoy or anger people.
Also mentioned in the article is James Veitch, who has multiple videos of TEDTalks about him replying to scam or spam messages. I’ve watched them (they are very entertaining, I recommend you watch them as well) and I can say that his trolling also heavily relies on lying. To waste the time of the person sitting on the other end of the scammy email, he pretends to be a hapless and gullible person who plans on using the funds gained from transporting the offered gold to invest in hummus. As stated in the article, his form of trolling isn’t meant to be mean; it’s meant to keep the scammers busy so that they have less opportunity to take advantage of less skeptical people. Thinking about other forms of trolling I’ve witnessed in my life, I can find falsehoods that they are built upon. One example I’ve seen somewhat often is when a troll pretends to be completely innocent and unaware as to why something they’ve said has upset someone else. Of course, the troll is extremely aware as to how they had been offensive, and is feigning innocence to continue to goad the other party into that reaction. Although, lying might not be a prerequisite for a troll. They could just be saying things that they believe in the company of people who they think will be upset by it.
0 Comments
The other night, I had a discussion with my father about politics (Which is, pardon my sarcasm, always just so fun). During that discussion, he told me a hypothetical story that I would bet you are familiar with. It goes roughly as such:
“A man asked his son to mow the lawn, offering twenty dollars for it. After an afternoon of work, the son came inside and was given his promised money. The father then says that he would like to take his son to get some ice cream, and so they get in the car and drive towards town. On the way, they pass a house with another boy sitting on his porch. The father says, ‘Alright son, I want you to get out of the car and give that boy ten of the twenty dollars you earned for mowing the lawn.’ ‘What? I earned that money myself, why would I give it to him?’ asks the son. ‘Because that boy didn’t have the opportunity you had to earn the money.’ The son crosses his arms and grumbles that it isn’t fair, to which the father smiles and says, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.’” The fact that I had already heard that story so many times already aside, I thought it would be a interesting piece of rhetoric to analyze. This hypothetical is meant to appeal to one’s logos. It makes sense that money that one earned through their own hard work would be theirs to do with what they will. The son would have no logical reason to want to give the other boy half of his earnings unless he wanted to be charitable out of the goodness of his heart. Pathos is also possibly applicable here, if we are meant to feel bad for the son who does not want to give up his money. For myself, what is to be missing from this hypothetical to make it a convincing argument is ethos. A father arbitrarily telling his son to give up half of his money to some other random child lacks whatever nuances are present in the actual United States tax system. It ignores numerous tax laws and things like tax brackets. On a simple level, I suppose it is a somewhat effective argument, but again, it lacks all nuance. I believe if one were to revise this story to make it more convincing, the situation should be more akin to the United States government. First of all, involving a random boy is like if the United States decided to start sending tax money to a random country. If we wanted to make it comparable, a closed economy of the household would make more sense. Perhaps the son would be asked to give his sister some of his money. Secondly, while it might seem naive to say this, the money gained from taxes is meant to be used for the benefit of all people in the country for things such as maintenance of highways and national defense, not just sloughed off to some random people to do whatever with it. I understand that the story is meant to parallel things like welfare, but it was presented in an unsatisfactory way. Here is how I would change the story: “A boy was given twenty dollars by his father after mowing the lawn. Of the twenty, he put five dollars into his piggy bank. Half of it was for saving up for a new skateboard after his old one broke. The other half was going to be used for ammo for the monthly paintball battle he has with his friends. Satisfied, he went to the living room to ask his father to take him to get ice cream. ‘Okay, I’ll take you. By the way, you have to give your sister one dollar of the twenty that you made today.’ ‘What? I earned that money myself, why would I give it to her?’ asks the boy. ‘Because she didn’t have the opportunity to earn that money.’ This didn’t sit right with the boy. ‘But, you didn’t ask her to mow the lawn, you asked me to to do it.’ ‘Right, but I’m trying to instil my values and disdain for welfare into you with a flawed metaphor that I’m deceptively making out to be more simple than it truly is. Welcome to the Republican party.’” Articles used in our project:
Right-leaning: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/grade-school-uses-sex-columnist-unicorn-to-promote-gender-identity Center: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/21/693953037/i-can-exist-here-on-gender-identity-some-colleges-are-opening-up Left-leaning: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/03/public-bathrooms-are-gender-identity-battlefields-what-if-we-just-do-it-right The issue that our group covered in our project is that surrounding society’s treatment of transgender and non-binary individuals. Rhetorical Strategies and Discursive approaches: -The right-leaning article uses Ethos and perhaps Pathos as well to establish that the poster it is campaigning against should not be shown to children or taken to be serious. It says that the poster has a quote from Dan Savage, who is a sex columnist and hosts pornography festivals. -The same article uses metaphor and says that “the gender bulletin board has created a firestorm.” We know from cultural assumptions of fire that this indicates that the parties involved are extremely upset and angry. -The left-leaning article establishes logos by introducing the idea of a significant gender-nonconforming population through citing a survey. -In regards to labeling restrooms, the article says “What if we just do it right?” multiple times. Within that statement is one that says that we are currently doing it wrong. The article does not outright say “We as a society are labeling bathrooms incorrectly,” but it gets the idea across through indirect speech. The intended audience for this parody would be left-leaning individuals that do not agree with views expressed on the right, such as how these issues are spoken about in the linked Fox News article. -- Parody: Something akin to an Onion article BRAKING: UNICORN THREATENS WORLDVIEW Parents were shocked when their children’s school had the audacity to entertain the idea that there are people who are not straight and cisgendered. A poster was hung up, depicting gender nonconformity propaganda. It comes straight from the mouth of an anthropomorphic unicorn, using a beloved symbol of children’s innocence to corrupt and confusing them! Even worse, known sex columnist Dan Savage is featured on the egregious equine’s poster. “Of course we can’t have anyone involved in sex teaching our children anything,” said a parent who plans on insisting that the stork is real until their child is twenty-six years old. Sources say that the next crazy bull that the liberals are trying to pull is de-genderization of bathroom signs. How absurd! We all agree that everyone has to know what everyone else’s genitals look like when they walk into a bathroom, our society will collapse into anarchy if we didn’t! First its using “they” and “them” to refer to people, now this! If you ask me, they’re going completely insane. -- My intentions were to respond to the Fox News article and call attention to some hypocrisy that I’ve picked up on from reading the article and from hearing general right-wing rhetoric. I feel like the parody is somewhat effective in calling attention to how I feel by exaggerating and satirizing a lack of self-awareness. To be quite fair, this parody does leave out some facts, such as how Dan Savage apparently hosts pornography festivals and has said rather rude things to conservatives in the past. However, I feel that an example of a somewhat similar lack of self-awareness by not including all the points that might take this parody off of the figurative high ground would add to it, given all of the squabble that can go on from each sides of an issue. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2019
Categories |