Blog assignment for 10/29/15

Don't worry; we've got so much to do on Thursday that we're not going to spend too much time on Ronson.  I have a longer blog planned for when we actually finish the book, though, so heads up.

This Thursday's assignment is, again, on the ethics of the chapters.  Two questions:

* You may not have heard before of the EU's "right to be forgotten" idea and Google's compliance with it.  To what do degree do you agree with the ability to have your records wiped from the Internet?  Think about it in comparison to Michael Fertik's requirements on page 220 - that top paragraph has a whole list of people he refuses to help with his business to rehab their image.  Do you agree with his list?  Are there things you think one should be allowed to bury, and things that should stay on your "permanent record," so to speak, any time a prospective employer (or potential significant other!) does a search?

* The "expert witness" chapter is another one that feels a little weird.  Fortunately, it's very short.  You need to know, in that court transcript at the end, that in British English, "pants" means "underwear."  (I know that transcript was, for me, heartbreaking to read.)  Do you think the ethics of shaming in a courtroom in this way different from doing it in a public forum?  It's perfectly legal for a lawyer to do this, but how ethical is it, and how does it relate to a lawyer's ethical requirement to help their client to the best of their abilities?

Blog Assignment - 10/20/22

It's another short one, because it's a busy week, but it's a two-pronged one.

Part One:  Pick one part of Ayn Rand's article, "Racism," which seems wrong, false, questionable, or strange.  Quote it (including page number), and explain what your problem with it is.  (If you've forgotten, the reading is on learn@uw, in a new section called "Readings."  You do not have to print out/bring this reading to class.) 

Part Two:  Write three research questions that you can see yourself working with on Thursday.  These might turn into your ten-page papers, they might not.  As a reminder, "Cancer" is not a question.  Examples:

* How do different religions encourage or discourage shame and shaming?

* What caused the Negro Leagues (in baseball) form and dissolve?

* What are the effects of social media use on college students' well-being?

Warning:  I will be allowing our Librarian to read these before you meet her on Thursday.  It's not like she's going to know who you are, but you should know that eyes technically outside the class will be seeing it. 

Blog assignment for October 15

Okay, as I said, I forgot about the graphic sex in the chapters you're about to read.  My bad.

By Thursday, though, you should have read chapters 7 - 9.  In their way, they're all about unconventional sexual behavior - but very different versions of it.  I've been trying to figure out the best way to have you write about these chapters for a few days.  You've got two choices:

*  Explain to me why these three chapters could be seen as belonging together or not.  Do you think they have similar messages, or different ones?  One paragraph.

* How do the titles of the three chapters relate to the content? One paragraph.

Blog assignment for October 8

Short, short writeup for tomorrow.  I was hoping to be able to access some of my old files by last night to get this up sooner, but the people at goddamned SUPER CHARGER are filthy worthless scumbags who lie about their delivery times, so my "real" computer is inaccessible.  I apologize for the timing on this.  As a result, this is a very, very short assignment.

You do need to read Murray and Zisser, as noted on the updated course calendar.  They're both in CCC (the green book) and they're both very short.  Here's the assignment:

Pick out ONE idea from either article that you think is useful to think about as you do peer review or go over your own stuff.  Then pick ONE idea that you don't think is useful.  Please explain why, for both.

Thank you for your patience.

Blog Assignment due October 6

So I was trying to figure out how to make all the writing/reading you have to do this week actually work for both you and me.

As you may have suspected (and as I think I may have actually declared in class), part of asking you to do these blog assignments is trying to coerce you into doing the readings.  BUT I've definitely upped the volume of how much reading I'm asking you to do at once, and I don't have the time to read through summaries from everyone of sixty/seventy pages at a time, anyway.  So here's what I think I'm going to ask you to do for this assignment:

* PIck one chapter to summarize.  You're reading three (4, 5, and 6) overall, but you only have to summarize one in a paragraph.  You must, in your summary, explain how the title of the chapter relates to its contents.

* Provide commentary/feedback in a short paragraph on at least one different chapter.  (You can ask questions or comment on three, if you like, including the one you're summarizing, but at least some of this paragraph must be about a different one.)  This is wide open to you; you can mention a part you didn't quite understand, talk about a part you liked or disliked, etc.  If you get stuck, here's a couple things to think about:

Do you feel that there's anyone here that "deserved it?"  Even if not, is there an appropriate use of public shaming?

Both Justine Sacco and Dave Eshelman give explanations - arguably excuses - for their behavior.  What do you think of the reasons they give for what they did or said?

Do you see a relationship between Keohane's "How Facts Backfire" and these chapters?  (I sure do.)