The Background

The quality of this image is not that great, and there is a good reason for it. This picture was taken in 1901. In the image, some soldiers are standing over a mass grave of enemies, the dead from a recently fought “battle.” I put battle in air quotes because, to call the massacre at Bud Dajo anything but a massacre is just plain wrong. For more than 1,000 of the Moro people were slaughtered by a modern military force of 750 men, a force that only lost 23 men in the process. The most disturbing facts about this picture is that the massacre was not performed by some European colonial power, but rather American soldier who were sent to pacify the Philippines.

The Argument

While I am unsure as to whether or not this photo reached the contemporary press, it nevertheless serve as a reminder of a dark period in American history. The photo does such an incredible job encapsulating this unique time period in American history. A time in which America tried it’s hand at the same kind of imperialism that Europeans were practicing in Africa.

The first argument that the image conveys is the brutality of the colonization of the Philippines. This argument is made clearly by the trench that is full of the bodies of not just men, but also women and children. Not only does this image convey brutality, but there is also a great element of disgust that one can not help but feel when looking at the soldiers. This feeling is so strong because the soldiers in the photo, stand posing around the trench, meaning that they were well aware that a photo was being taken of them. Which in turn means that the men were proud with what they did. Proud of massacring a group of women and children. Finally a sinister tone is added to the picture when one takes a careful look at the body in the center of the photo. It is the corpse of a woman, who has her breasts exposed. The reason that this is so sinister, is that reader cannot help but consider that these people might not have been just murdered, but also raped and tortured before so. The fact that this act was committed by Americans is probably the strongest argument of the photo. Because it shows that human beings are able to commit great atrocities regardless of where they grew up.

 

Image Source

Bud Dajo Massacre Source

The Talk

For this blog post, I watched “The Psychology of Evil” TED talk given by the famous (and infamous) Philip Zimbardo (the psychologist who ran the Stanford Prison experiment). In his speech he talks about the psychology behind what leads someone to be evil. He establishes throughout the talk that the vast majority of people who commit evil are everyday people, who make the wrong choice. He expounds upon this idea by analyzing the two main factors that lead people to make these wrong choices, novel situations and large systems. In regards to novel situations, Zimbardo says that new situations lead people to disengage their morality as they begin to adapt to the new circumstances. This disengagement of morality makes individuals more malleable in what they are willing and able to do, which then leads them to commit evil if pressured or if they believe that they are expected or have to. The second thing that he examines in the talk is the effect of large systems (which could be simplified to mean societies and institutions), which have an innate tendency to promote conformity and provide animosity. Both of these factors allow people to dissociate themselves from their actions, which allows them to commit evil. He ends his talk by discussing that the way that people can counter evil in everyday life, is through being firm in their morality and standing up for what they believe in.

The Good

Out of all the good thing that Zimbardo does, the best thing that he does is use many stories to convey his message. The two stories that he devotes the most time to are about the Abu Ghraib prison (a prison in Iraq in which American Army Reservist decided to tortured prisoners on their own accord) and the Stanford prison experiment (an experiment that Zimbardo ran in which average college students willingly  began to realistically perform the roles of prison guards and prisoners). By drawing, parallels between the two events Zimbardo establishes to the audience that he is an authority on understanding why normal people commit evil, along with serving as a catalyst for his explanation on what specific psychological phenomena allowed for Reservist to torture the Abu Ghraib prisoners.

Another good thing that Zimbardo does, is that he offers an antidote to the evil at the end of his talk. By ending on this positive note, after describe the horrifying fact that virtually anyone is capable of committing the worst evils, Zimbardo ensures that the counter-measures to evil are the facts that are going to stick with the audience the most.

The Bad

The worst thing about Zimbardo’s talk was the length. When I say this I mean that, Zimbardo wanted to communicate a lot of information in a short period of time. To this end he talks really fast which leads him to physically be panting for air on stage, which is quite distracting. The second weakness that arises out of this information dump is that it leads Zimbardo to run over his allotted time which leads the TED stage crew to repeatedly and consistently trigger the sound signal that he has run over his time.

The Conclusion

Overall, I thought the talk was very effective. While, I did not learn too much new information, I still found it interesting how he was able to link together many different psychological concepts to describe the exact reasons why acts of evil occurred in each situation he mentioned. I would highly recommend the speech to anyone, for it is important that we understand what causes people to commit evil so that we can recognize the signs in our own actions in order to stop evil from being enacted.

 

The “Evil Empire” Speech

On  March 8, 1983, Ronald Reagan delivered what is now known as the “Evil Empire” speech(0:45-3:15) at the National Association of Evangelicals. During this speech, Reagan tried to explain the necessity to continue the Cold War. To accomplish this goal, Reagan effectively structured his argument, effectively used pathos, and effectively invoked strong imagery to convey his message.

Structure

In this segment of the speech, Reagan organizes his argument to maximize it’s impact. He begins the speech with a pathos appeal. The significance of this uses of pathos is that it serves to establish an emotional connection with the crowd. By beginning with this, Reagan makes himself more likable to the crowd and so increases the likelihood that they will enjoy his speech. Reagan then goes on to deliver the substance of his message, that the Soviet Union is a totalitarian regime, that tyrannically oppresses it’s people. Choosing to include his central message right after he got the attention of the audience demonstrates why this is a great speech. Because it shows that Reagan is aware that the attention of the audience is limited and so he must deliver his message before their attention wanders. Reagan ends this section of the speech, by painting an image of the men who are in charge of the Soviet Union to the audience. By doing so he is establishing a physical image of the enemy rather than the abstract concept of a nation state.

Pathos

Reagan begins his speech with a pathos appeal. In this appeal he mentions a story from when he was back in Hollywood. It is about a man who says that he would rather that his daughters die believing in a god rather than live under communism and not believe in a god. Now this appeal has several great things going for it. The first and most obvious is that he is mentioning religion in front of a crowd of highly religious people. This serves to establish trust between Reagan and the audience and to get the crowd to like Reagan  because it is meant to show that the two have the same values. The next interesting thing at work here is that Reagan is reminding the audience of his time in Hollywood, in which he is known to have aided in the Second Red Scare by helping the Committee of Un-American activities. This in turn lends authority to Reagan because he has crusaded against communism before. Also, it serves to establish trust between the crowd and Reagan because, it shows that Reagan has always been hard on communism and that he is not merely changing his stance with the political winds.

Imagery

The section of analysis ends with Reagan painting a picture of the bureaucrats who run the Soviet Union. He paints them as white-collar office employees who have others commit evil in their name. This appeal works for several reasons, the first of which is that by mentioning them after calling the Soviet Union evil, he is able to give the audience a physical enemy. This is very helpful for a second reason, which is that the enemy is established to be the elite of the Soviet Union, not the common man. So rather than the struggle being nation vs nation, it becomes a matter of the moral US vs the Oppressive elite of Soviet Union. Finally, it paints an image of unseen evil, for many people at the time did not know about the many evil policies of the Soviet Union. By having the bureaucrats order evil out of sight, it lead the audience to distrust the Soviet Union, regardless of what they say because what ever they are doing wrong has already been established as being secret.

Conclusion

Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech is a highly effective speech that takes into consideration the most effective origination of the messages, the emotions of the crowd through paths, and the crowds aversion to abstract concepts through imagery.

The Summary

The article “Studies Are Usually Bunk, Study Shows” confirms what many of us know too well, in what the media has branded the Trump Era, but what might as well be the Subjective Era. As politics has grown more and more polarized and has corrupted nearly every facet of society, people have doubled down on their ideologies. In this process, they have departed from seeking the truth. Instead, both sides of the aisle have chosen to engage in ideological worship, following a dangerous trend towards the subjective reality. Subjective realities in which individuals choose what they want to be real and then evidence to support their stance. Rather than do the proper thing of collecting data and then building a stance based on the facts.

These subjective realities lead to the skewed and flaws world views that produce the things that the article discusses, false or unverifiable data. While this may seem to be like a minor issue, this is probably one of the biggest issues that threatens our society today. For if we allow ourselves to withdraw into our own subjective realities, then we head for dangerous territory. We will be unable to build consensus because no one will be able to agree on the foundation and basic facts that the conversation will be built upon. And if this occurs then all dialogue will break down. And if people stop fighting with words, then they will start doing so with fists.

The Problem

The problem with this article is that the only data that it provides is the actual study that states that these studies are wrong. It would have been a much more effective article if the author were to bring up contrary evidence to begin to deconstruct the examples that are mentioned within the article. Without this, the article suffers from an issue in which it looks like the kettle calling the pot black.

The Warning

The article can serve as an important reminder when writing our paradigm shift essays. A reminder that we must look at the research rationally and objectively and see where it takes us. For if we do the opposite enter the process with a bias or a story we wish to tell and then look at the data, then the argument will be weak and fall apart. The reason for this is simple, if a stance is not formed with facts then it can not be proven to be true in anyway. Instead it becomes a failure, and becomes a monument to bias and ideology.

Image Source

Facts vs Belief Source

The Shift

For my shift I will be covering the changes in political views of young adults from 1960-1990. The story I will attempt to demonstrate, is one of action and reaction. As generations, not only alter their political views to solve the problems of the time period, but also as a reaction of the norms established by the past generations.

I am starting in the 1960s so that I can encompass the entire shift and draw parallels to the political shift that has been happening over the past 15 years (but I will get more into that later). As the 60s began young adults of America held views that could broadly be described as center to center-right. As the decade went along, young adult views began to become more progressive/left wing. This change was largely brought about because of opposition to the Vietnam war. By the time of the mid-70s, this left wing view had become entrenched. However, as the 80s rolled around, young adults began to become more conservative. This change was largely caused by economic hardship in the 70s. By the mid 90s, the views of young adults shifted once more towards a more center right position.

In my TED talk, I will focus in on ideological changes between the 70s and 80s because of the parallels that exist between then and now.

The Reason

The reason why I find this paradigm shift so interesting is that I think that it is cyclical in nature. If this is true, then I think we are currently at the point of reaction against left wing progressivism (quite similar to the shift that occurred between the 70s and 80s). This becomes clear if one takes a look at the current polling of iGenners, which indicates a shift towards conservatism/libertarianism. As we move forward, it is important to understand the nature of this reoccurring paradigm shift, so as not to make irrevocable mistakes, in the form of extreme opposition to what seems to be a natural change in views overtime.

Image Source

Political Chart Source

Claim

The Atlantic article by Jean Twenge spends a great deal discussing a paradigm shift brought about by smartphones and social media. The article covers a vast range of changes brought about by smartphones, but simply put they can be simplified into two categories mental health, and time usage. Starting with mental health changes, smartphones have led to increased loneliness, and depression as iGeners spend more time interacting with people through technology (which reduces happiness) than through face to face contact (which increases happiness). Also correlating with smartphone introduction is a dramatic shift in how iGeners spend their time. No longer feeling the need to communicate through face to face contact, iGeners spend increasingly less time with friends or on dates. Now able to easily contact parents, iGeners are less likely to have drivers license because they can rely on parents for rides. With an instant line of communication between parents and children, iGeners are less likely to pursue independence. 

The Shift

The paradigm shift in this examples comes from the fact that not all generations were like this. Past generations spent more time engaged in social contact with peers, and more time pursuing activities independent from parental supervision. And so the shift, which is a dramatic one, is from a past teen culture of independence, self-sufficiency, and activity to new teen culture of reliance, obedience, and sloth.

Image Source

Phone Source

Mayor Tom Bradley Press Conference after First Night of LA Riots

Background

On April 29, 1992, the trial for the police who were charged with assaulting Rodney King concluded. The trial ended with the officers being acquitted of any wrong doing. In wake of this verdict, years of repressed hatred erupted on the streets of LA. On the following day, Mayor Tom Bradley held a press conference in which he urged the citizens of LA to remain calm and civil.

More specifically, Mayor Bradley stated that he understood the anger that the black population of the city felt at the verdict, but he argued that this anger should be expressed verbally, not through violence.

Relationship to RFK speech after the assassination of MLK

I chose to analyze this artifact, because I found the failure of the artifact to deliver the same result of the RFK’s speech interesting. Both speeches have the same message and both use similar methods to communicate their point, yet Bradley’s appeal failed. It is for this reason, the failure of Bradley’s speech to achieve it’s goal, that I wanted to analyze it, to see more clearly what exactly determines whether or not a speech will be successful.

By comparing the similarities and differences in the speeches, I am hoping that I will be able to isolate where Bradley went wrong, and what RFK did right. Choosing these speeches works quite well because the similarities between them allows for an almost scientific study of rhetorical persuasion. For example both were given in response to racial outrage, both attempted to calm riotous people, both attempted to convey a message of peace and tranquility instead of hatred and anger.

I think that my analysis will mostly focus on how the speakers used kairos and rhetorical appeals. It seems that the delayed press conference and lack of timelessness in manner that Bradley conveyed his message is one reason why he failed. While Kennedy succeed because he was delivering the speech the day of the assassination and focused more on the timelessness of his message (references the future that they are building throughout the speech). In regards to the rhetorical appeals, Bradley spent very little time developing pathos before jumping into logos, which is one big reason why I think that he failed. In comparison, the majority of Kennedy’s speech was based around pathos and ethos, before briefly touching on logos at the end. I think that this is one of the major reasons why Kennedy was successful, that he was able to invest the audience in his message before stating the purpose of his speech. I think that the thing that can most be learned from comparing the two speeches is that there is more to a speech than just having a superlative message, the methods in which a speech is delivered have to be superlative too.

Video Source

Riot Press Conference Source

Symbol

As my logos reduced image, I have selected the Gadsden flag. While the flag was first created during the Revolutionary war, I will only be talking about the modern-day meaning and interpretation. The flag displays a rattle snake with the words “Dont Tread on Me.” The background of the flag is yellow to symbolize danger. When all aspects of the flag are connected the meaning is revealed, the flag advocates for the viewer of the flag to be wary of treading or in some other way injuring the snake, or owner of the flag. The purpose of the flag is to convey the ideology of limiting or eliminating the government and other’s ability to interfere in the lives and rights of private citizens. Not only does it advocate for the limited government, but the flag also espouse an ideology of retaliation if the owner or their rights are violated. The commonplaces that convey this message are the concepts like it is dangerous to restrict the rights of others and it is morally wrong to restrict the rights of others (both of which are principles of the Revolutionary war), along with the idea of live and let live (which is implied by the dont tread on me).

 

Effect

The message both succeeds and fails in it’s use of logos. The central appeal of the flag, which is to leave others to their own devices, is a logical appeal. It is logical because it implies reciprocation, meaning that if the flag owner is left alone then they will leave others alone. The logos fails in the second part of the ideology, in which the flag owner threatens violence against any who would tread on them. The lack of logic here comes from the fact that violence is typically not the solution to issues, especially when an individual’s rights are being violated.

Image Source

Flag Source

The Kairos

Cthulhu for America (also called Cthulhu 2016) was a satirical presidential campaign in the 2016 election. The online campaign began as a way to mock the two party monopoly before widening it’s range of satire to encompass the candidates of the year. The genius of the campaign comes from Cthulhu being chosen as the candidate. For Cthulhu is a malevolent squid demigod creature who is seeking to wake from his millennia long slumber and destroy the world in the H.P. Lovecraft’s horror series the Cthullu Mythos.

 The campaign creates kairos through the site’s various articles. Using satire the various articles on the site criticize Cthulhu’s “opponents” (Clinton and Trump) by showing flaws in their platforms and views, which in turn creates a sense of urgency. The urgency arises from the reader realizing that both of these candidates are pretty awful and that their policies are poorly thought through or not in the best interest of the public. The campaign also uses hyperbolic messages of doom to create a sense of urgency. These messages range from pointing to failing system to bringing attention to various problems that are unlikely to ever be solved by politicians from either the Democrats or Republicans. The campaign attempts to convey kairos by using logos and pathos appeals. Logos is used to discredit Clinton and Trump with some of the most noteworthy examples being blurbs included about Cthulhu’s opponents policies at the bottom of each of Cthulhu’s policy discussions. One of the more effective ones come at the end of Cthulhu’s economic plans in which Clinton is said to “make outrageous promises to curb the very system that engorges her campaign and her network of shell companies and “charity initiatives,” while Trump is said to “promise to curb the system he directly benefits from with the same old deregulation and tax break song and dance.” Pathos is included throughout the various articles on the site in an attempt to amuse and outrage the reader into agreeing with the campaign. Even though the campaign can be quite amusing, there are times when it goes overboard in the satire and Cthulhu theme which ends up diluting the message of the site. An example of this being Cthulhu’s view on illegal immigration which is that by “conquering the world… all humans will be Americans… and then they shall be eaten.” After browsing through the site, I can’t say that I am motivated by it’s message. The reason for this is that the campaign’s overindulgence in satire and simplistic message makes it hard to be motivated to act. If the campaign reduced it’s humor and focused more on analyzing the faults of the two political parties then it would have been far more effective.

Image Source

Cthulhu 2016 Source

A Bad Ad

This is a pretty bad ad. I don’t know where to begin with this one, except to begin stating the issues that I have with it. The ad has serious problems with a lack of information, the “edgy” phrase, and bland visuals.

The ad contains no information except the model of the camera and the companies name. There is no information about the camera’s functionality, benefits, or any innovations that demonstrate that the camera is a novel enough product for consumers to buy. Instead of the ad delivering useful information that would lead a consumer to pick it over the competition, the camera relies on a “edgy” phrase in an attempt to jar the viewer into paying attention to the ad. The issue with this strategy is that there is no information on the poster to capitalize on the shocking line, so ultimately it ends up failing. The final issue with this ad is the bland visuals. The background is a boring bluish-gray and white color, which is typically used to draw the viewers attention to the foreground. The issue with this is that there is nothing to look at in the foreground except a bad picture of the camera (it is a weird angle that does not showcase the camera at all), and the “edgy” phrase. That is why this ad is ultimately a failure.

Image Source

Ad Source