Author: Morgan Chambers

They say an image is worth a thousand words. What does this image say to you? Two wedding rings connected by a chain. It seems to depict a couple together by force rather than by love. The controversial topic shown through the image is that of marital rape. Should marital rape be as punishable as rape between two people not married? Through common rhetorical devices, the creator of the image was able to show the bounds a woman or man feels when forced into sexual intercourse by their spouse.

Since some may be unfamiliar with marital rape, I am going to provide some background information. As of 1993, marital rape was considered illegal in all 50 states.  However, many states still treat marital rape differently than rape outside of marriage. The punishment is not nearly as harsh for those who rape their spouses. In fact, a staff editorial states, “In Ohio, a woman can be drugged and sexually assaulted—legally—if the perpetrator is her spouse.” There are similar terms in other states in America. In countries across globe, marital rape is common. Arabian women especially face this crime with their husbands legally being able to force sex upon them. The image above perfectly encompasses the chains these women and men feel.

The image uses pathos to convince viewers of the emotion associated with marital rape. When most people see wedding rings, they think of love, safety, and trust, but the handcuffs imply different ideas. Handcuffs and chains give the impression of pain, restraint, and hatred. It pulls on the heartstrings of anyone viewing the image by associating the supposed greatest symbol of love with the world-known object of bondage. Because people are used to feeling safe when they are with their spouses, they are deeply emotionally affected when they realize how some people feel with their spouses compared to how they should feel.

The kairos of the image being released also attributes to the persuasive measures of the photo. Based off the quality of the image being analyzed, it had to have been released after the North Carolina made marital rape illegal. The image is trying to draw attention to the recent controversy surrounding punishment of marital rape. Many in today’s society are unaware that marital rape is still prevalent let alone the protection rapists have when accused of this crime. The release of the image added to its persuasion because it was given after marital rape was made illegal in all 50 states. It was only released then to draw attention to the punishment rather than the crime.

The aspect of logos is not as prevalent in the image as other rhetorical devices, but there is a small amount of it. Logically, chains and wedding rings do not go together. Love and marriage. Chains and prisoners. Those words go hand-in-hand, but chains and weddings rings just don’t. Our brains automatically detect something it out of place when seeing the image above. This clear demonstration of logic being thrown out the window helps prove the image’s point. There should not be chains in a marriage. A person should not feel trapped by their own spouse. The image creator used logos by creating a completely illogical picture.

The TED talk I watched was given by DeAndrea Salvador, and her speech was labeled “How we can make energy more affordable for low-income families.” In a short but moving speech, Salvador shared some interesting points on how to lower the price of energy.

Salvador’s main thesis was, “The price of energy for lower-income families must be lowered.” She begins the TED talk with a sweet story from her childhood where she recalls standing in front of her grandmother’s AC on a hot, summer day. Following that story, she shares with the audience how many people in her neighborhood did not have this seemingly senseless luxury. How many times have you been grateful to afford AC and heat? Probably not often. However, for the lower income families, they are forced to beg to stay warm for just one day in December. This is one of the more important ideas I took from the talk. How difficult it is for some to obtain energy while others (like me) take the heat for granted. I never even imagined having to choose between receiving medicine, eating, or staying warm.

Another important point Salvador made during her speech was a statistic she gave. The average American spends 3% of their income of energy compared to low-income and rural populations. In these areas, they are spending anywhere from 20% to 30% of their income on energy. She followed it with an even more moving statistic that over 25 million people in America skipped meals last year in order to afford energy. These two statistics together as a 1-2 punch really stood out to me. Can you imagine having to choose between food and energy? Salvador really proved her thesis here. No one should have to make this decision.

Before watching the speech, I knew nothing about the affordability of energy. After listening to Salvador speak, I feel much more well-informed. There are times when I can hear a speech and gain no knowledge at all. Speeches where it seems the speaker just rambled for five to six minutes, but Salvador loaded her speech with background information on the situation, statistics of energy cost, and solutions to how we can fix the problem. In addition, she was able to keep me interested enough to hear her words being spoken. Sometimes, whether or not the speaker gives all the information, it can still feel as though you have learned nothing if they use incomprehensible language.

Salvador’s use of rhetorical devices was definitely strong in her speech. As I earlier mentioned, the logos she used was intense. When you hear a big number like 25 million, odds are you will stop and listen to the following information. Not only was it attention grabbing, but (sorry to reiterate) it also proved her point well. Salvador also utilized pathos in her TED talk. She included a brief, real-life example. To evoke emotion from the audience, she wanted them to imagine having to choose one of the three things for their own daughter: medical care, heat, or food. It, at least for me, put things into perspective.

Salvador gave a perfect example of delivering a speech rather than doing a presentation. She stole the crowd’s attention right from the beginning with her hook childhood story and kept them interested with statistics and emotional inclusions. Salvador gave a more personal tone as used in a speech rather than the formal tone presenters use.  Although Salvador did include a visual aid in her speech, she kept her eyes and focus on the audience rather than interacting with a PowerPoint. Finally, to bring home the gold, Salvador shared her ideas in a way that everyone felt they could understand. At times during presentations, people listening could feel like the idea was over their heads. Salvador made sure her concepts were comprehensible.

For my speech analysis, I chose a speech given by someone who I knew I could ruthlessly criticize without feeling awful. The speech I’m analyzing was given by me at my graduation this past June. From the 45:57 to the 47:57 marks in this YouTube video, you will see yours truly giving my salutatorian speech at commencement. I was a nervous wreck writing and giving this speech, but it ended up not going pretty well. Nonetheless, there are many things I could have done better, so this is the speech I chose to analyze and tear apart.

Although I had given speeches in front of large crowds before, you can clearly see I was nervous delivering this speech; therefore, in relation to delivery, my eye contact was very poor. I barely looked up from my script at all, and the few brief moments I do result in a stumble over words. Eye contact is a very important aspect when giving a speech. It establishes interaction with the crowd. For TED talks, no script is provided, so hopefully my eye contact will be improved.

(A photo of me looking at my script rather than the crowd)

As for organization, I thought my flow went well. I began with a nice introduction and couple jokes to grab the attention of the crowd. I went onto giving the statement on which I wanted to discuss (“Whatever you;re going to be, be the best at it.”) then continued my speech by elaborating on it. I first explained how my class has already accomplished great things and fulfilled the statement. Then, I explained how we could continue to fulfill the statement with whatever career path we choose to take in life. I finished the speech with a conclusion on how accomplishing the goal would affect the world. My speech organization process was hook, task, explanation, goal.

For a persuasive technique, I added logos into my speech. I included financial statistics that proved how influential the senior class had been in the fundraising department: The amounts we had raised with Mini-THON, special case sporting events, and Powder Puff. I also spoke of the well-known sport and musical accomplishments that proved the athletic and artistic dominance in the class of 2018: a 2-0 Powder Puff record, district-winning volleyball team, national harpist, etc.. This was a mediocre aspect of my speech. Although I did not convey my message poorly, I felt I rambled a little. I should have made my delivery of the accomplishments more interesting rather than just a list.

Overall, my speech was not as effective as I had hoped. My tone and poor eye contact really prevented me from having a more persuasive speech. However, I prefer to believe at least some members of the audience took away the message I was trying to share. Sometimes even the worst speakers – in terms of delivery – can keep the attention of the crowd if they have an interesting message

How many times have you read “studies show…” and automatically believed whatever was written next? You are not alone. Many people do this, but studies show most of the research everyone automatically trusts was not done properly. In an excerpt from Studies Show Studies are Bunk, Andy Kessler explains why one should rarely believe the studies they read about, and I agree with most of his points. After taking an AP Statistics class in high school, I learned how difficult it is to perform a proper study, so I was already weary on being quick to trust any random study.

Wessler talks about a few different reasons to question studies in Studies Show Studies are Bunk. In the excerpt I read, he begins by explaining some of the trickery researchers will use to get their point across. He writes about the manipulation of the modern world, and the lack of variety researchers use in their study settings. Wessler reminds readers that most studies take place in a college classroom, so the results are likely to favor college students. An example I have heard in the past that bolsters Wessler’s claim is the statement “75% of people say…” without giving a sample size. If the sample size was four people at college, it wouldn’t be surprising that three of them think the legal drinking age should be lowered; however, whomever gives the results of the study is going to keep the location of the study and amount of people hidden.

Wessler also included the statistic that out of 100 leading psychology studies only 39 were able to be duplicated. One key component of a study is its ability to be replicated; therefore, 61 of “leading psychology studies” are likely to be portraying false information. In most circumstances, people are not going to realize this minor but important detail in a case study. In my AP Statistics class, we always discussed the importance of this. One study does not tell you much because there are ample confounding variables that could be affecting the results.

Finally, Wessler ends this excerpt with one of the most crucial statements in the world of research. A phrase my stats teacher drilled into the mind of every student in my class last year (and I’m sure the students in all the years before me). Wessler wrote “Correlation doesn’t equal causation.” Nearly everyone forgets this at one point whether it be during a study or when reading a study. For example, if the stork population increases will birth rate also increases, this is not necessarily because there needs to be more storks to carry the babies. It could be due to migration or an increase of worms in the area. Correlation does NOT mean causation!!

It is highly important to consider all of Wessler’s warnings while researching my paradigm shift in order to provide substantial evidence to support my thesis. Writing a paper with resources like Wikipedia or studies in a poor setting are not going to convince the readers to agree with my opinion.

 

For my paradigm shift analysis, I intend to decipher how different trends on YouTube affect its viewers. From the app’s debut in 2005 to now, YouTube has experienced three different eras in its short time. The website began as a platform for creativity with anyone being able to have their videos become popular, but dynasties quickly appeared. The emergence of YouTube stars came around 2012 with people like Jenna Marbles capturing subscribers. Finally, YouTube reached its third stage with the popularity of vlogs and lives of real people. I think these three eras can be labeled as comedy, loyalty, and drama. Of course, there is some overlap as fans can be loyal to Jake Paul or find comedy in Shane Dawson’s vlogs, but, overall, the foundation is one of the three categories.

However, just stating the genre of YouTube video is not a story. With my Ted Talk I want to tell the story of how the trend affects the viewers. The intended audience for current YouTube stars is preteens, teenagers, and even some young adults. When the videos focused on comedy, the viewers were more light-hearted. When the videos focused on loyalty, the viewers were more loving. Now, as written in the article Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?, the depression rates among people in this age range have skyrocketed. I believe it connects to the focus on drama in YouTube videos. When the intended audience sees how drama can attract people, they try to incorporate drama into their own lives. The allure for drama is affecting viewers. Because the trend could be influencing viewers to this degree, I think the idea needs to be explored.

Although I want to focus on the generation’s reaction to the YouTube era, I want to broaden my boundaries to including how YouTube came about. The rise of technology contributed to YouTube coming to fame. I also want to research why YouTubers starting making videos and how they rose to high ranks. I think understanding the background of YouTube and its royalty will help to show the paradigm shift.

 

 

Are smartphones are paradigm shift? Let’s begin with discussing what a paradigm shift is. If you ask Google, it is a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions. Although this is a strong basic definition, I believe there are other factors that contribute to something being considered a paradigm shift. For example, a paradigm shift, in my opinion, must have an evolution. The object being spoken of should change over time. A paradigm shift does not have to be currently changing, but it must have had a span of change.

The smartphone, as written in Jean Twenge’s article Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?, has definitely shaped many aspects of the current generation. Dubbed by Twenge as generation iGen, the children born between 1995 and 2012 are experiencing higher rates of mental illness and lower rates of violence. Whether or not this is due to the smartphone uproar, the correlation is prevalent. This aspect of the paradigm shift is fulfilled by the smartphone.

While smartphones have definitely changed our society, they lack one major aspect of a paradigm shift. The smartphone enacted change all at once. The technological advancement of smartphones happened all at once affecting one generation. A paradigm shift, in my opinion, requires many different changes over time. For example, we watched the Ted talk of the ideal image of a woman in class. The speaker presented how the “perfect” body changed from Marilyn Monroe to the workout body to the Victoria’s Secret Angel all over the course of decades. The phone didn’t have any evolution like this. It has only been twenty-six years since the invention of the smartphone and six years since the smartphone became prevalent with half of Americans recorded to own one.

Although I do not believe the smartphone is a paradigm shift for this reason, some may argue the change does not need to spaced out over time. As earlier explained, the smartphone clearly influenced society no matter how long it took to do it, and as the basic definition states: it is a fundamental change in approach. While I disagree, I am not fully opposed to this statement. So, readers, I ask your opinion. Do you believe that evolution is a crucial factor in the paradigm shift?

My comparison civic artifact is in the form of a school walkout. Because my actual civic artifact was also a walkout, I wanted to be able to compare how times have changed the outcomes of walkouts drastically. I Google searched “influential school walkouts” when I decided on a comparison, and the East L.A. walkouts stood out more than any other. The experiences these students went through, and their ability to fight through it intrigued me most. The West Boca walkout occurred 50 years after the East L.A. walkout which makes for a very unique comparison. The country reacted very differently to essentially the same walkout. Since walkouts are not any form of text, they are different than the common artifact. However, they can still use words to emphasize for what they are marching. Their messages are short and sweet compared to other artifacts.

In 1968, East L.A. was experiencing a time of extreme racism. Mexican Americans were filling the city, and the white American was not pleased. The Chicanos were physically and verbally assaulted day after day in their communities. Their most abusive setting was school. Teachers and classmates constantly degraded the Mexican Americans for their heritage. Some students even faced expulsion for speaking their native language in class. The students wanted to be treated as equals. They marched to make a difference showing the country they could not be silenced.  They would not allow the white man to bully them anymore. The march argued it was the country’s civic duty to treat Mexican Americans as an equal.

 

The walkout used their short and sweet messages to demonstrate pathos. The hundreds of signs carried moving signs like “Viva Castro” or “si se por que es justo (Si se por que es justo meaning “If you can because it is fair”).” The students were able to establish ethos by living through their situation. They know what the school environment is like because they attend the schools everyday. They utilized kairos by having their walkout during the black Civil Rights movement. The country was already beginning to realize minorities would no longer be walked all over, and the Mexican Americans bolstered this realization.

 

Colin Kaepernick. Just saying those two words, five syllables, or fifteen letters can easily spark a debate among Americans across the country. He is the NFL player that began the kneeling for the national anthem epidemic. Although Kaepernick made his motives incredibly clear (stating time and time again his kneeling was meant to show his disappointment in America for their treatment of the black population), citizens all over the country erupted in anger over Kaepernick’s disrespect of the flag. They claimed he, and other kneeling football players, hated their country and the soldiers who fight for it. Some people felt strongly enough about the situations to even make bumper stickers expressing their disgust towards Kaepernick “disrespecting” the flag.

(The fine print reads, “For you liberal idiots out there (Liberal idiots… what a clever insult! (Can you put parentheses inside parentheses?)) – this is not a real phone number!”)

Yes, really. They made bumper stickers. This particular bumper sticker is supposed to be a statement that persuades people to respect the flag or at least feel degraded about supporting civil disobedience, but, in my opinion, it is just a statement that screams “white trash.” Instead of actually changing anyone’s opinion, it disrespects others’ opinions and removes their freedom of speech. The bumper sticker clearly states an opinion, but it completely failed in making anyone listen to their beliefs.

And, yes, I know the sticker is meant to be a joke not a Martin Luther King Jr. civil rights speech, but their logic of the joke doesn’t even make sense! The people who kneel for the flag are not offended by it. Everyone who kneels knows the flag stands for freedom and equality, and they are proud of their country. They kneel because, at the time being, they are disappointed in America, and the way Americans are treating other Americans.

 

Most memes are posted at a propitious moment to have optimum comedic effect. It must fall into the meme of the time (1) or the comments with be flooded with the worst possible response: “stale meme (2).” It is almost more difficult than sending your joke in a popping group chat before the subject is changed (3). Almost. Everyone remembers the overload of memes during the presidential election in 2016. All of these memes include an element of Kairos due to their postings in the weeks before the voting began. The meme I included is actually a meme-ception.

The image above is a meme inside a meme with both aspects showing Kairos. The meme surfaced early enough before the election to use the caption “Which folder to use hmm” but close enough to the election that it was included in the meme of the time.  The memes in the folders will have strong Kairos after the election. Once Trump won the election, he became the meme of the time.  Honestly, I think it would be difficult to find anything with more Kairotic effect than this meme. There was clearly a lot of thought to the current nation news put into this post.

All memes have a single purpose: to make their audience laugh. Oddly enough, this is a form of persuasion. The memes are persuading people to find comedy in the post. Through ethos and pathos, the above meme successfully convinced me to laugh. In order to connect with teenagers, you must establish your credibility. Doesn’t it seem so much easier to laugh at a meme posted by a stranger online than an adult stranger telling the same joke in real life? Teenagers connect with other teenagers, and knowing the meme of the time establishes credibility. If you know the meme of the time, then you are “one of us.” Automatically accepted. When it comes to the rhetoric device pathos, the election was very emotional for many online. Whether you were voting Hillary or Trump, you were emotionally invested. The sense of humor among the new generation is involving jokes with things to which we are attached. Using something as emotional as the election and making a joke out of it sounds odd, but it is the exact formula this generation craves for comedy.

The meme did its job. It made people laugh. The post received many likes and comments showering praise on a job well done. Meme accounts across Instagram reposted the meme.  The intended audience was clearly motivated by the appeal. Thanks to all the things we thought were useless in high school English (Kairos, pathos, and ethos) we can now enjoy memes online!

 

(1) Meme of the time – when something is happening in society, Instagram will be flooded with memes of the incident making that something the “meme of the time” (Side note: sometimes the meme of the time can be something old resurfacing that people are just now making into a joke)

(2) Stale meme – the most degrading reaction to a meme because it means your meme is old or not funny

(3)

      “Puppy monkey baby, puppy monkey baby.” I gave no initial context, but you said those words to a tune, didn’t you? Every year, the Super Bowl is watched not only for the display of American football on its highest platform but also for the delight of clever commercials. Usually, the advertisements have game watchers laughing or crying, but in 2016, everyone joined in on watching one of the most bizarre commercials to be aired on television. The great Puppy Monkey Baby catastrophe of Super Bowl 50 is not likely to be forgotten anytime soon. Tweets, posts, and videos flooded all social medias with a similar response after the commercial was aired: “EW!” It was nearly impossible to find someone who was not made uncomfortable by the advertisement.  

 

     For those who have been lucky enough to forget, the commercial includes a singing animal who is one third puppy, one third monkey, and one third baby. I included a link to the commercial if you would wish to scar your minds with the image again. Although most viewers of the commercial remember the slightly creepy creature, it is quite difficult to find a watcher who is able to recall what the commercial was trying to sell. The commercial failed to use pathos, ethos, or logos in its attempt of selling the product. Although puppies and babies are two animals commonly associated with cuteness and emotion, the combination of them with a monkey killed any possibility of cuteness or emotion. Instead, the puppy monkey baby just looked like a nightmare making pathos impossible. The audience did not feel any emotional pull toward the creature. Likewise, ethos was not accomplished in the commercial. The puppy monkey baby does not evoke credibility from any of the viewers. Finally, the commercial did not use any facts or statistics, so logos was not properly used either. If a commercial doesn’t have pathos, ethos, or logos, is it possible to be successful?

     The worst part of the commercial, if it has not been made obvious by this point in my post, was the visual appeal. Every advertisement that is able to attract buyers had a visually appealing aspect: the Old Spice commercials with the handsome, shirtless men, the Audi commercials of a sleek black car driving through aesthetic landscape, the Trivago commercials showing off beautiful white sand beaches and clear blue water. Puppy monkey baby is the complete opposite of visually appealing. Honestly, think of the ugliest object you can imagine. Puppy monkey baby is at least ten times uglier than your imagination. As mentioned earlier, the cuteness factor of puppies and babies did nothing to make the puppy monkey baby pleasing to see. To say the advertising committee dropped the visual appeal ball in this commercial would be an understatement.