Andrew Boynton; a fairly rhetorical blog

Supreme Court Justices can disagree with the prevailing opinion. This can be viewed as failure to sway the general opinion of the court, but in the end, it can become law. Dissent of the court is often used by presidents or Congress when formulating laws, and often, these dissents are the basis for how the law is formed.

Several points throughout history, dissent has led to future change. In 1896, the Court handed down a 7 to 1 ruling in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that separate is equal. The dissenting opinion, written by John Marshall Harlan, was later used by the court for the basis for the opinion in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, stating that separate can never be equal.

Dissenting opinions can also sway the justices, and they can split the court, permitting for more discussion and debate over heated issues. On several occasions, such justices as Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote dissenting opinions which then become the prevailing opinion thanks to garnered support.

Dissenting opinions also provide precedence for future arguments. In 2007-8, District of Columbia v. Heller, the dissenting opinion created a different definition of the second amendment right to bear arms. Such a definition may be used in future discussions to give backing to opinions.

Dissent, while not necessarily an immediate success, will normally be useful for future discussion, and at some point, that dissent may be viewed positively as the basis for successful changes and laws. Dissent at a time can provide the groundwork for future successes. Dissent of all forms is merely a form of rhetoric, and it can help to create positive discussion and debate. Dissent in any discussion, while possibly not encouraged in the here and now, is necessary for giving an argument more emphasis and force.

When filming a movie, light is one of the most important symbolic tools. It can be used to portray imprisonment or questionable morality. As shown in the Vimeo Video, light can be controlled to put people in shadow or to move the light onto their faces. At the same point, as light can be controlled to make a shot clearer, it can also be used to put a transition between two items. As shown by the Vimeo man, light can be moved simply by reflecting it off of a white surface. The rhetorical implications of something as simple as this are astounding. Since light can be such a symbolic tool, the ability to control its placement is highly important for showing changes.

Also, as the Vimeo man states, having the subject move as opposed to the camera can be important for stability reasons, but it can also be used for rhetorical reasons. If the character in frame is moving, the focus can transfer from one person to another, but if the camera moves to follow the action, the focus remains constant. While this effect may not be as important or as rhetorically minded as light placement, the focus of the action is highly instrumental in framing shots. In some ways, by not moving the camera and controlling the light, the videographer is able to control the situation without having to relocate. The focus is no longer on getting the perfect situation or timing; now it is on how the situation can be adapted to fit what the videographer needs. To some degree this was mentioned in the second video as the Vimeo man advises to set up the shot before actually filming in order to not waste time or the situation. By setting up the shot, one is able to focus more on what the rhetorical impact of the shot will be.

When someone has information that is worth disseminating, that knowledge should be shared. In the most recent batch of the stall stories (which I just read for the first time) there was an advertisement for an anti-rape defense class. This class was open to enrolled female students taking women’s studies courses… Now, some of the public may not see this as an issue, but anti-rape defenses should be taught to everyone. While I can understand the idea that men should not be in the same class as women for psychological aspects, there does seem to be a civic responsibility that the instructors are neglecting by not actively encouraging all female students to take a self-defense class.

Education, in itself, is a civic responsibility for the learner, but I would argue that there is also a responsibility on the side of the teacher to present their knowledge in a fashion that will spread the most amount of knowledge to the largest number of people. If a student should be educated, then who will educate them? Knowledge is worth sharing, and I would argue that the point of knowledge is to use it in some fashion. If you yourself will not or cannot use that knowledge, then it should be passed along. If that knowledge can help someone, it should be passed along.

In this case, I accept that logistically speaking, inviting the entire university to take part in a rape defense class may not be feasible, but it does seem like civic duty to try to spread as much of the knowledge as possible. There seems to be a possibility for civic minded rhetoric as students should speak up to discuss this issue. Not only is it important to focus on women’s studies students, but all women should know some sort of rape defense skills. Even men should have an understanding of how to deal with this issue. Rape culture needs to change, and it starts with the mentality of the population, and this advertisement does not help the way the population views rape.

Let’s be honest. I always look down on my work, but I feel like this talk was painfully drawn out. I always talk slowly, but this one was just painful. Furthermore, the way I held myself during the talk was awkward to look at and awkward to carry out. Eye contact was not as strong, especially at the beginning, and there are obvious spots of hesitation at the beginning. When reviewing this talk, there are few things that I look at positively, but I can definitely say that this was not one of my better presentations.

The speed at which I moved was slow. Too slow. In fact, it lost a race against a hare and jumped off a cliff. In the end, it lost viewers’ attention, and it made people think I did not know what I was talking about. It creates an image of hesitation where a TED talk is supposed to be fast, lively, and upbeat. While this presentational style might work for something else, it did not work with this medium.

Then, the way I held myself. Throughout the presentation my shoulders are slumped back. My hands are held awkwardly, and my legs are close together. All in all, this is not a powerful pose. It does not portray confidence in either what I am saying or what I am doing. At the same point, I seem almost to be holding back from the audience, distancing myself and my ideas from those who are trying to understand what I am saying.

Eye contact. I look down too much. By looking down, I seem to be hesitant, nervous, and not confident in what I say.

Content-wise, the presentation seemed disconnected, poorly formatted, and inappropriate for the audience at hand. Use of informal language and lack of voice inflection loses the audience’s attention, and I, sadly to say, seem to have lost my audience.

All in all, this was not my best talk.video-20131114-101809.h264

So, as you probably saw, I got somewhat confused with the whole, RCL post and RCL homework post. These things do happen! Well, I figured I might as well try to get a post tossed in here at the eleventh hour. Where to start? Well let’s take a look at some political, nonverbal dialogue. Recently it was discovered that the United States was wiretapping its allies in Europe. Specifically, Angela Merkel was a bit annoyed by this invasion of privacy. When you look at the nonverbal message sent by such an act, Merkel’s response was completely justified.

Allies. The word suggests that two groups work together through mutual trust and toward mutual trust. When a member of the alliance does not trust the others, how can the alliance function properly? When the United States taps other foreign leaders’ phones, it indicates a lack of trust and respect for that nation’s sovereignty. Over the past fifty so years, the United States’ respect for other nations’ sovereign borders has deteriorated substantially. When this lack of respect is focused toward a third world country or a country that we do not have particularly good relations with, it is more acceptable for several reasons (none of them particularly savorable). When this broke, it became apparent that we no longer trusted our allies. We didn’t respect them, so why should they respect us?

Over the past few years the United States’ abilities to conduct foreign policy have regressed substantially. Other countries have quickly outpaced our rhetorical ability. This was recently shown in the situation in Syria as the United States made several errors when negotiating with both the rebel forces and Assad. These recent faux pas have produced the idea that the United States is weak and unable to truly function on a global scale. In some ways, this is not just an analysis of how nonverbal, political rhetoric works. It is also an example of how civic life can sometimes include just being polite to others and watching what we say.

I’m sorry… I thought the TED talk idea was the RCL blog post. My bad.

Diets, clothing, mobility, and technology. What do they all have in common? People want to take them all back to their beginnings. There have always been movements that were conservative and completely anti-change, but in general, the modern movement into the past is not a conservative reaction to change. This movement has to do with the idea that humans in general would profit if they were to resort to the same activities and diets of their ancestors. Some of the general examples are barefoot running and the paleolithic diet. My link to my paradigm shift is not at all tenuous (well… the paleolithic diet part is.) I did the paradigm shift associated with competitive running, and along with that comes the creation of barefoot running.

In my presentation I’ll probably use humor to connect with the audience while still keeping the facts fairly simple. I don’t really like to use too many visual aids, so I will probably use some of the zen technique to setup my slides. I might wear or bring my vibram five finger barefoot shoes to add a more concrete example for the audience.

This topic may be a bit too broad to cover in a Ted talk, and I still am not quite sure what my thesis will be. Possibly I’ll go with a center of the road approach. While the returning to the essentials method may be effective in some manners, modern technology has improved living conditions to the point that some aspects of the paleolithic/cave man living styles are actually detrimental to the human body. While this may be true, it will be difficult to be passionate about such a subject, and I may have to change either my topic or my thesis for this Ted talk in the next coming days. And by maybe, I mean I will.

It had to be done sooner or later, and if you have not seen this video, this post makes no sense if you haven’t. SO GO SEE IT. The song was actually meant to be an advertisement for Ylvis’ comedy show in Norway. Needless to say, it was rather successful at getting people to look at Ylvis, but it was very ineffectual at advertising his show. Where did he go wrong? What did he do right? The song is over the top, and any song that goes above and beyond what people expect shoots to the top of the list of videos that people must see. Furthermore, the subject of the song is so ridiculous that people are drawn to its creator to learn why exactly he wrote a song about the sound a fox makes. Of course, this was sort of the original goal. He sparked interest in what he does by creating such an unusual thing that everyone simply HAD to see what it was about. Of course, he didn’t bargain for the laziness that accompanies viral videos. People who watch videos all day, every day, are not the ones that he wants to see this video since they are unlikely to actually move a muscle to discover what was the true purpose behind the video. Let’s be honest. I even knew the true purpose, was fascinated by the video, but never looked up the show itself. Does this mean Ylvis failed in his objective? Not exactly. If he were to release something else relatively soon, this video would serve almost as his ethos. It gives him the credibility to make silly things work out. He took advantage of just that right after the video went viral by going on several talk shows to discuss his reasoning behind the music video, and this did help him to establish some semblance of reasoning. All in all, he created kairos by making the video, all he has to do now is capitalize.

How are sororities rhetorical? They chant? They screech? It seems like everyone in their right mind must hate sororities, but they don’t. There are nicknames like “sorostitute,” “sorociraptor,” and more to describe these screeching robotic, demon twins; however, their numbers still grow. If they’re convincing people to join, there must be some sort of rhetoric associated with them. So what is it about these hordes that makes girls flock to them? Apparently sororities rely on complicated processes similar to those that fraternities run with. (If you are unfamiliar, there is apparently a cool:pull ratio in fraternities, related to how cool you are to talk to versus the abilities you have to pull in hot girls.) The following post was found in the freshman facebook page for Penn State, “Hey ladies, I’m Nicole, the recruitment director for Tri Sigma Sorority! We are having a recruitment event tomorrow (October 8th) that the sisters of Tri Sigma would love for you to attend! It’s taking place in our suite on the first floor of Haller Hall at 7pm. If you are interested in receiving more information, feel free to message me or email me at nwc5072@psu.edu.” This post creates the idea of camaraderie with the name “Nicole” and the general tone of the post. At the same point, it stays informative, and it repeats the name of the sorority twice to try to get that ingrained in the audience’s mind since this is not yet a commonplace. However, the general statement of “Haller Hall” does fit into both the commonplace and the kairos of the post. Recently, halls were erected south of Pollock to house the sororities. Everyone knows this, and this has become a commonplace. Along with the general knowledge of location, people know that these halls are far better maintained than other locations. Thus, this acts to take advantage of kairos by reminding the audience of how nice the sorority dorms are.

That’s it. I’m good. Why no one else chose this, I don’t understand.