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.)

Surprise! Fun, independent blog assignment!

First off, I feel like I need to explain why I started laughing so hard and became incoherent at Trevor's explanation of who Michael Moore was last week.  It's because when he asked, "Is he a great big fat person?" he was doing an impression of Ted Levine's character, Jame Gumb, in Silence of the Lambs:

And I found this unbearably funny.  

Okay, with that out of the way, this blog assignment is going to be very short.  I mostly just want you to read this article because it's something I'd like you to think about for short assignment four, the longer paper due in two weeks, and ultimately the Ronson book as well.  I'd like you to read the Keohane article (also available through learn@uw) and do these three things:

* Summarize Keohane's piece in 1-2 sentences - just a very broad overview.  

* Answer the question:  Have you ever seen this happen to people?  People who simply refuse to change their minds no matter what they learn?  

* Answer the question:  Have you ever changed a strongly-held opinion because you learned something new?  If so, what was it?  If not, do you think Keohane's explanation of how people react to facts matches your own behavior?

Not long, just something to cement the piece in your head.  You'll need it.

First Blog Assignment - Due 9/22/15

I like trying to guess how many of the people on stage have showered recently.

This is pretty standard for what a lot of your blog assignments are going to look like.  It's fairly basic; it's going to be a very short version of the Gladwell assignment (Short Assignment Two).  Give me two paragraphs:

* One, a paragraph in which you summarize the reading - in this case, Chapters Two and Three of Jon Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed.  I had you read the two chapters together because they're more or less part of the same story.  Try to just smash them together into a single, short paragraph, with a topic sentence.  Here's my example, using the first chapter of the book:

In "Braveheart," the first chapter of So You've Been Publicly Shamed, Jon Ronson explains that he was driven to explore the topic of how people use the Internet to shame others because of an experience he had in which men he disagreed with were attacked on a Youtube video. The disagreement stems from three men professionally interested in Internet algorithms who create a Twitter feed named "Jon Ronson," complete with a pixelated photo of Ronson, which creates tweets based on an algorithm apparently based on Internet information surrounding Ronson's name.  Ronson's case is that the Twitter account has basically stolen his identity, and he confronts the men who programmed it, then posts their conversation in a Youtube video.  While Ronson eventually "wins" in that the Twitter account is taken down, he is startled by the vicious nature of the Youtube comments attacking the three other men, and it compels him to begin researching the ways and reasons people have used the Internet to insult and harass others who have engaged in "shameful" behavior.

Ronson can genuinely be a difficult author to summarize because he asks more questions than he answers.  Do your best, and do the same thing for the second and third chapters - smash them together into a single paragraph that summarizes both.

* Two, a paragraph in which you express your reaction to what you've read.  I'll usually provide a few questions in case you can't think of anything.  You do not have to answer these questions, but it's a place to start in case you're really stuck.  Here are the ones for Chapters Two and Three:

How unethical are Lehrer's actions? How about Moynihan's?  At what point does Moynihan seem to change his mind about the morality of his actions, and is it a reasonable point?  Do you end up rooting for anyone in this story?  What do you think went wrong with Lehrer's apology, and what do you think of the apology, yourself?  Can you imagine yourself in a situation like this, either being in Moynihan or Lehrer's shoes?  How would you do things differently or the same?

You don't have to watch the video at the head of this post, but if you've never heard "Like a Rolling Stone," the song Chapter Two is partially about, you probably should.  Again, this blog assignment should not be something that you are slaving over for hours; it should just be something that helps you focus your thoughts and prepare for class.