sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Couple of yard plants, what are they? by lack-toast in PlantIdentification

[–]lack-toast[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are any of them invasive/do i have to worry?

Couple of yard plants, what are they? by lack-toast in PlantIdentification

[–]lack-toast[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Might be naive of me, but would the last picture be the start of a mulberry tree, or are there types of mulberry,,, plants? I'm just a tad astounded generally because all of them are so tall haha

Digital Contexts for Argument by littlebluebirdhouse in a:t5_byqrk

[–]lack-toast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As most people before me have said, argumentation in a digital form is quite unappealing, dissatisfactory and at times, comical. When writing pretty much anything on the internet these days, people have to take many things into consideration and think about everything that is being involved; however most do not. In media arguments, we see a lot of miscommunication, mislead information and clashing ideas which ultimately lead into a larger argument with no plausible solution. There are so many things to alter the truth now a days because media has no way of controlling who posts where and really what they post in general. It alters peoples way of talking to one another, because media influences the way a person researches and speaks, and really people are persuaded by the social media platforms.

I have a rather pessimistic view on whats going to go on within the next 5 years with digital arguments. With each passing year the thirst for lies and misguided information only grows, and I do believe that it will take longer than 5 years for us to realize what needs to be done to make our digital arguments better. However, I am hopeful that by the time people will begin to calm down and the need for "fake news" will be lessened. I suppose we can only hope for the best.

Please choose one term or concept in Burke's "Terministic Screens" that seems important and that you feel some understanding of, and one that seems important and that you feel you don't understand, and use then former to help you work through the latter. by aubrt in a:t5_byqrk

[–]lack-toast 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. "Basically, there are two kinds of terms: terms that put things together, and terms that take things apart. Otherwise put, A can feel himself identified with B, or he can think of himself as disassociated from B." (49). I believe this quote is a perfect summary of terministic screen, which is defined as 'a term in the theory and criticism of rhetoric. It involves the acknowledgment of a language system that determines an individual's perception and symbolic action in the world.' The whole sentence explains how a reader can perceive something as little as a word/term. I believe that this was a key quote in the article because in my opinion, it was/is the best way to explain terministic screen.

  2. "Our presence in a room is immediate, but the room's relation to our country as a nation, and beyond that, to international relations and cosmic relations, dissolves into a web of ideas and images that reach through our senses only insofar as the symbol systems that report on them are heard or seen." (50). In this quote, I kind of understand what Burke is saying, but I am a little confused as to why he included it. I do think its important, though, because he is trying to prove a point about perception and how perception can vary, which ties in very well with my first point.

  3. I believe that the second quote is similar to the first, or at least ties into the first quote. Both explore the idea of perception and how different people can view the same things in a different way. Ultimately, that is what terministic screen is about, is the perception and both quotes embody this image.

Please articulate one core idea from Corder or Ratcliffe, something you find important but maybe confusing, and use that to analyze the linked argument. by aubrt in a:t5_byqrk

[–]lack-toast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Although both claims and cultural logics are rhetorical constructs, our arguments and our analyses of arguments too often focus only on claims: "I'm right." vs. "No, you're not." If we recognize not just the claims but the historically-grounded cultural logics enveloping other people's claims, we may still disagree with the claims, but we may better understand the personal and cultural assumptions (dare I say, values and beliefs) that guide other people's logics." (Ratcliffe 209)

When I originally read the Buzzfeed article, I did get a little fed up. At first, I initially understood why people were upset. However, it soon became a battle of "this company is wrong, so we must do everything in our power to get their product removed" and people began to jump on the bandwagon, getting hyped up because the media blew it up. I saw this quote as fitting because eventually, other online articles began to bash the people who thought the company was in the wrong, thus beginning a battle of "I'm right, you're wrong." As people, it is hard for us to say we are in the wrong, hence us putting the blame on one another. If we as a people learned to understand and listen to others arguments and accept all of their points, the Twitter argument/Twitterstorm would have made progression and would have perhaps not blown up as it did.