Friday, March 31, 2017
March Blog Post - The consequence of co-option and power structures.
There is a lot of debate between the First Amendment and the extent of what freedom of speech really is. More importantly focusing on hate speech. While America tends to brag about treating everyone equal, there is clearly an increase in hate towards people in minority groups. Especially with our new administration, the question is asked, "Will hate speech become normalized in America culture, disguised under the idea of the First Amendment?"
A prime example of this is Milo Yiannopoulus and his desire to say terrible things about not only Trans people, but also women, homosexuals, and Muslims (I'm sure there are other groups he targets too). The idea is that by allowing Milo to give such terrible and destructive speeches on campuses is a form of co-option by the states by allowing a gay man preach on their campus, but there is the real side of him that is nasty. This also allows for the idea of that this may be the only exposure some people get to homosexual people and this becomes a long lasting impression. Also, this gives more power to the majority of people who desire not seeing a balance of all people, not matter their orientation, gender, religion, etcetera.
An example of the things Milo says ranges from (WARNING: POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE CONTENT),
""While talking about the transgender bathroom debate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in December, he displayed a photo of a transgender female student from that school and told the crowd, "the way that you know he's failing is that I'd almost still bang him.""
""He's also implied Americans have good reason to fear Muslims and said that liberals believe that they can make Muslims accept gays if only they "hug them hard enough. Well, news flash ladies, it's not a boner, it's a bomb.""
This is a person that is inherently causing more harm than good; even though they say is it protected under the First Amendment.
Why Bother with a Family?
"Instead, all family
relationships should be understood as chosen, voluntary, and less obligatory
relationships, and we encourage family communication researchers to consider
the harm that can stem from referring to families as nonvoluntary relationships"
(Berry & Adams, 60). A family could be nonvoluntary. I know communication
is unnatural, but I grew up being taught that unless one of us is a sex
offender or a murderer (or some other extremely immoral actor) you stick by
family no matter what. Blood is thicker than water. At least, that was how it
was supposed to work until August 2016. My family took in one of my sister's
best friends, a boy in his senior year of high school. All of a sudden, I had a
foster brother. I will be honest, no matter how much I learn about
communication, unless one of us suffers brain trauma and has a dramatic change
in personality and ethical beliefs, this boy will be someone I tolerate at
best. My family is no longer nonvoluntary. Every day I choose my family, I am
also not rejecting him. It sucks. There are days I see him as Buber's I-it. He
means nothing except tempers and chaos. He is an object, like the pea in the
princess' bed. This thing is dragging down a formerly healthy social group. We
do not know how to communicate what we feel in appropriate ways, we lash out,
we hide in silence, and there is always disgust and hatred boiling, waiting to
be dumped on someone.
This
sentence made me realize I can have my family, and reject him. I could reject
some members of my family, and keep others. I could even dissolve all contact
with my family. But I struggle to fathom how that works. How does someone
choose. Is this where connection vs separation comes in? I realized the
other day that I now flip between cynicism and nihilism about how this boy
could have a positive or even neutral effect within the blood family’s relationships.
This class is making me wonder if communication is about being honest, or if
communication is theater. Can I express something in a way that to me is a lie
and fictitious, but manipulate it to seem truthful and/or understandable to
another person. Is it all an art? What is communication really about, what I am
supposed to use it for? And how does understanding these theories make my conscious
misrepresentations or honest forth comings moral?
March Blog Post
Andrew
Orejuela
Ivey
Communication
160
30
March 2017
March Blog Post
This month we touched on a subject
of family bullying and the impacts that it has on the victim of such bullying. Family
bullying is when the bully is a person in the family, like an older sibling, is
bullying another family member. The main difference in family bullying opposed
to a bully at school is that the victim cannot really get away from their
bully. When there is a bully at school, the victim can go home and not have to
worry about anything happening to them until the next day. But a family bully
goes home to their bully, they are constantly in fear when they are supposed to
be in the comfort of their home. This article talks about two different
experiences from two people and how they were affected by family bullying.
The ideas brought up in class that
related to family bullying is the I-it and the I-thou. I-It is defined as
object centered, while I-thou is person centered. When someone is I-it, they
think of others as objects and not people, and try to take advantage of the person.
I-thou considers people as people, and takes their feelings into account. I-thou
is what most people I think people should strive to be. It leads to
selflessness and makes people courteous of others feelings.
When discussing the I-thou and the
I-it, the majority of the people in my group described the bully as I-it and
the victim as i-though. The reasoning behind it is the bully sees the victim as
something they can gain something from, as the bully may be insecure about
themselves and this makes them feel better, while the victim considers the
bully someone they still care about (as they are a family bully) and do not
want to hurt them the same way the bully does to them. This was the consensus
of the group and I do not believe anyone believed differently. But me on the
other hand thought that they both look at each other in the i-it perspective. I
believe this because I think the victim looks at the bully as someone who
strikes fear into them and nothing else. When someone is being bullied, I don’t
think the victim really cares about the bully and how they feel, even if the
bully is a family member. It is hard for me to think that a victim of bullying
really cares about the feelings of someone tormenting them.
I remember when I was in 6th
grade and these 9th graders were picking on my friends at I at our
local elementary school. We were just playing basketball and these guys came up
and wouldn’t get off the court we were playing on, they were just skating
around and throwing a football at the backboard as we were trying to play. At
this point, I didn’t care about them or their feelings, I just wanted them to
leave us alone. So when we stopped and said something to them, they proceeded
to take my friend Louie’s bike and throw it in a dumpster, and while Louie was
running they grabbed him and said they were going to break his arm. In this
situation, my friend Alex and I were I-thou to our friend Louie, but I-it
towards the bullies. We cared about Louie and his personal health, so we did
whatever we could to get him out of this situation. We just told them we were
going to leave and they actually let him go, but when we were walking back the
things we said we wanted to do to them for what they put us through, probably
would be better if not explained. In my own personal experience, I don’t think
of a bully at all of I-thou only an I-it.
I found the I-thou and the I-it to
be rather interesting ways have a perspective on different people. I can now
analyze people and kind of recognize when a person is either of the two. I also
can see when I am being either or, and try to lean more to I-thou than I-it
when I realize I am I-it.
Third Blog Post (March)
Lilly Crolius
Dr. Christina Ivey
Communications 160
31 March 2017
Blog Post #3
“If we can’t change a system unless we’re immersed in it, how can we hold on to enough of ourselves that we are able to discern the status quo and challenge it when we should?” This was a quote I wrote down in class a few weeks ago. It interested me more than the numerous bullet points that followed. More specifically, the part that goes “challenge [the status quo] when we should” caught my eye. This has been a common thought on my mind for the past few years. My generation, the millennials, has sparked a social revolution that focuses on the sexes and race. I was raised in a conservative household that stressed tradition. Talking about different genders, sexualities, and racial issues wasn’t taboo, but it was and still is concerning to me that people are starting to come out as anything more than straight, gay, or bisexual (identifying as animals and races that they’re not, or young children deciding they want to change gender before they even know what sexuality is). In my eyes, the right-wing is concerned with upholding the traditional values of politics and society while the left-wing is all about progression and change. I think change is really good with a lot of topics, but I also think it’s important to decide what is worth changing. There’s been a lot of attacks on the Republican party lately due to the 2016 election, which is understandable due to freedom of speech and opinions, but there have been some unnecessary actions taken against the Red Party. For instance, Google has recently changed their definition of fascism to “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.” Also, people have been beaten on the streets for voting or assumed of voting, for Trump. I, personally, have been called racist and homophobic online for no reason and I know truly I am neither of those things and never will be. I am a very accepting person who only dislikes people if they are rude or attack me first. This has been happening to the entire Republican party. I agree there is a large number of anti-progressive members, but pigeonholing everyone else isn’t fair and very hypocritical. The problem with today’s political system is that both parties assume the other is the enemy. I agree with the leftists that some things in America should be reformed such as women’s rights, but I agree with the right wing that marching with no clothes on and talking about “drinking male tears” isn’t the way to approach that. I also think when people start identifying as ages and races they’re not and genders that don’t exist, the line gets blurry and we need to set boundaries. I know this sounds harsh, but it’s mistaken by a lot of people and they think I’m saying “I hate anyone who wants to identify as a pansexual demi-queer foxkin.” I’m not saying that at all; everyone deserves kindness, but in the eyes of social construct it’s important to remember that having structure is important.
March blog
Luckily, this past month both of my communication
classes have discussed interpersonal communication. This has enabled me to dive
deeper learning more about interpersonal communication and its relationship to
self-disclosure. First, in chapter ten of Communication:
A Critical/Cultural Introduction, written by John T.
Warren and Deanna L. Fasset, interpersonal communication is described as “the
interaction or exchange that occurs between people who are in an interdependent
relationship” (192). All humans have interpersonal relationships and it has
been fascinating to learn how much our relationships impact our everyday life.
Interpersonal relationships have a huge effect on self-disclosure.
Self-disclosure is described as “revealing information about yourself that
another person would not readily know” (202). Different relationships you have can
be at different levels of self-disclosure.
I have always noticed that my relationships
with people vary. I share more personal information with some friends rather
than others, and that is just the way it has been. Until I read more about it
in class I have realized that relational dialectics relate to the amount of
information I disclose with different individuals. Once I have reached a level
of interdependency meaning trust has been built more information about my life
is revealed. Part of being me is enjoying my privacy, I am an open person when
it comes to my close relationships. Other than that I don’t disclose much to
peers in my classes or friends who I haven’t developed that bond with.
Why is it important to understand
self-disclosure? It is important to see and understand levels of self-disclosure
in order to evaluate the different relationships you have in your life. I have
learned about the factors that contribute to higher levels of self-disclosure.
Moving forward this will allow me to think more about my interpersonal
relationships from more of an academic standpoint. This knowledge has also opened
my eyes to the difficulties of self-disclosure. It takes a lot to reveal
personal information. As a listener to my friends, I will now pay more
attention when friends are opening up and truly try to understand them to not
only help them but strengthen our relationship.
March Blog Post
Taylor Alpaugh
COMM 160
March Blog Post
3/31/2017
Bullying being
around for decades, it wasn’t until 1999 that out of the 50 states of the U.S.,
Georgia was the first to pass school anti-bullying legislation. As technology advanced,
cyber bullying was recognized where young children would be bullied from their
very own device or profile on social media. It wasn’t until September 12th,
2013 that Republic Act No. 10627, entitled “An Act Requiring All Elementary And
Secondary Schools To Adopt Policies To Prevent And Address The Acts of Bullying
In Their Institutions” was signed by President Aquino, officially placing
executive imprimatur on the Bill passed by the 15th Congress (Marasigan, 2014). Since peer bullying was being
recognized, there was no light shed on bullying within the family. Growing up, siblings,
cousins, and so on tend to always fight with one another or simply, “be kids”,
therefore no thought is put on how the younger child is feeling and/or the
oldest.
A reading that had stuck out the
most was Family Bullies by Keith
Berry & Tony E. Adams. This reading addressed the bullying that takes place
within the home by other family members. A sentence that stood out was, “By
engaging autoethnographic narratives readers come into intimate and emotional contact
with issues of family communication, with the aim of documenting and living
more aware and meaningful cultural lives and showing some of the ways in which
public, cultural discourses inform private, personal experiences.” This sentence stood out because the authors clearly
address that this issue is needing to be recognized and by doing so, sharing
personal stories and putting them into the light instead of being hidden.
Families
being viewed as the ones who love each other the most, unconditionally, and
those who will be there for one another is a perfect example of Simulacra.
Defined as a representation or imitation of a person or thing. This article
highlights the fighting within families between siblings/cousins which can lead
to hurting typically the youngest mentally. Sadly, a friend of mine’s friend
had committed suicide only a few years ago, and my friend had recognized that
his friend who passed had been bullied by their older sibling since they were young.
Though it is unknown why the friend committed suicide, but after reading this
article it opened my eyes that sadly could have been a reason. Though media on
television shows recognize that siblings fight and mess with one another, they don’t
exactly shed light on what it could potentially lead to and make someone feel.
Sources
March Blog: 'Merca
‘Merca
Political commentator and television host Bill O’Reilly once said “The goal of higher education should be to champion the airing of all honest viewpoints. Nothing less is acceptable.” Ironically enough, O’Reilly also had this to say during House Representative Maxine Waters speech about nationalism and Trump’s presidency, “I didn't hear a word [Waters] said. I was looking at the James Brown wig. If we have a picture of James, it's the same wig." The political discourse and general political atmosphere in America has become divisive and, at times, counterproductive. Although written approximately 33 years earlier, Audre Lorde’s essay The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House* provides valuable insight on how to navigate our turbulent, political landscape.
Throughout our life, we spend a lot of time trying to fit in. Whether it be “buying” into the latest fashion or technology craze, people have a need to feel unified and part of a greater whole. Often times, homogenization and exclusion are the end results. Rather than advocating for a position of “sameness”, Lorde calls for inclusion of multiple viewpoints as a method for increasing understanding and awareness amongst disparate parties; “Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic.” One example of creative differences is sparking change in the status quo can be found with bipartisan support for the American with Disabilities Act and the Children's Health Insurance Network (CHIP).
While Lorde specifically addresses the plight of women in her essay, (she states “As women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change“) ideas of isolation and dissention are not solely unique to the women's movement. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were often seen at odds with each other even though both individuals fought for the recognition and acceptance of the African American narrative and experience. Within the LGBTQ community, undertones of animosity and internalized homophobia can be found between gays, lesibian, bisexuals, queer and trans identifying individuals. Within the African American community there is discord about the effectiveness of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Positioned 30 years earlier, Lorde was also aware of these problems when she states “Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time.” It would seem history has come full circle and progress towards creating moments of genuine dialogue about differing narratives has come to near stand still. Our current political climate has turned a tolerable “Eden” to a literal “white washed” landscape of overt racism and demagoguery. Between the Muslim ban, funding cuts for the Arts and Education, and lack of support for Environmental policies, to goal of the United States government should be the champion of all it’s citizens, not just the 1% or those who are ingrained in the dominant social norms and structures that govern our autonomy. Nothing less is acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)