On Wednesday Vlogbrother, Hank Green, made a video about his trip to Haiti with water.org, a charity that helps people in third world countries get clean , safe water. The Vlogbrothers have a large, devoted following of awesome people called Nerdfighters. Nerdfighters fight for nerds not against them. Hank and John have long since realized that having such a large, devoted following can help improve the world. A lot. Nerdfighters want to help other people, but don't always know how they can help. So often times the Vlogbrothers will highlight certain charities that Nerdfighters can help. This time it's water.org.
Hank and John also know their audience. They know that actually going to a third world country and helping out, is much better than just telling Nerdfighters about a charity. Images speak ten times louder than words. They also know that Nerdfighters are far more likely to help out if they can connect with the people they are helping. Showing clips of the village and people they are helping is just one way to make that connection. Hank makes the connection even stronger by coupling the images with his own descriptions of the places and people we are seeing.
It would be far to easy to turn this video into another pleading charity commercial, but Hank understands that Nerdfighters don't need to be pushed to do the right thing. He knows he's provided more than enough motivation for the Nerdfighters through the images he has chosen to portray and the connections they forge with other people.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Heynabonics
With our commercial analysis speech due in a couple of days, I've been thinking a lot about how I talk.
I'm from Simpson, Pennsylvania. The closest city anyone's ever heard of to Simpson is Scranton. Even then they probably have only heard of Scranton because of The Office. So basically it's one of those small towns in the middle of nowhere that no one ever leaves and even if you're lucky enough to escape your family's always trying to pull you back. Since we're pretty much isolated from the rest of the country we've developed a certain dialect. It's not very different from normal speech, but I'll notice that I sometimes pronounce ceratin words differently than others. For example sometimes I'll say "Mayan" instead of "mine."
The main thing I've noticed, however, is my tendency to run words together. For instance I'll often smash "did you eat yet" into something like "djeetjet." It's almost like I'm mumbling, but at a higher volume. In normal conversation my lack of enunciation isn't really a big deal, but when making a formal presentation or speech it's a problem. When speakers don't enunciate, they seem sloppy, like they don't care about the speech enough to even put effort into forming proper words. I want people to judge how much effort I've put into my speech based on the content, but if I sound like I don't care then why should you care? Most of the time, with enough concentration, I can remember to enunciate, but sometimes I still slip up.
Honestly I should be grateful I only have to deal with a minor lack of enunciation. Some of the people from Northeast PA sound like complete idiots when they talk. I once heard someone order "a couple two, tree hadags, two wit kraut one wit not" which in plain English would be "three hotdogs, two with sauerkraut, one without." Godda love da Valley, heyna?
The video explains a lot more about Valley speak.
I'm from Simpson, Pennsylvania. The closest city anyone's ever heard of to Simpson is Scranton. Even then they probably have only heard of Scranton because of The Office. So basically it's one of those small towns in the middle of nowhere that no one ever leaves and even if you're lucky enough to escape your family's always trying to pull you back. Since we're pretty much isolated from the rest of the country we've developed a certain dialect. It's not very different from normal speech, but I'll notice that I sometimes pronounce ceratin words differently than others. For example sometimes I'll say "Mayan" instead of "mine."
The main thing I've noticed, however, is my tendency to run words together. For instance I'll often smash "did you eat yet" into something like "djeetjet." It's almost like I'm mumbling, but at a higher volume. In normal conversation my lack of enunciation isn't really a big deal, but when making a formal presentation or speech it's a problem. When speakers don't enunciate, they seem sloppy, like they don't care about the speech enough to even put effort into forming proper words. I want people to judge how much effort I've put into my speech based on the content, but if I sound like I don't care then why should you care? Most of the time, with enough concentration, I can remember to enunciate, but sometimes I still slip up.
Honestly I should be grateful I only have to deal with a minor lack of enunciation. Some of the people from Northeast PA sound like complete idiots when they talk. I once heard someone order "a couple two, tree hadags, two wit kraut one wit not" which in plain English would be "three hotdogs, two with sauerkraut, one without." Godda love da Valley, heyna?
The video explains a lot more about Valley speak.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Today's special is Ethos...
Did you ever have one of those moments where you are thinking about something and then your brain makes a leap to something that does not seem related at all? That happened today to me during class. Professor Kramer told us that if we do not know the answer to a question about our presentation we should say something like "I'm not sure. I'll look into it and get back to you," and the first thought that popped into my head was "Oh, that sounds like what I say when I'm waiting tables at Frank's Place." I mean they just seem completely unrelated, rhetoric and waiting tables. Then I started to think about it a little more and found some interesting connections (like I was wearing my Frank's place shirt today and didn't even realize it until now).
I wait tables for the tips. On a busy Saturday night I can make a decent amount of money, but only if I establish ethos with the customers. I need to know what I am talking about, have a pleasant attitude (even if I'm swamped), and make sure all of their needs are taken care of in a timely fashion. These correspond to the three necessary components of ethos in rhetoric, intelligence, good will towards the audience, and good moral character. All three of these things are necessary if I want a sizable tip. If just one is out of place, it can negatively affect the experience for everyone involved (including my bank account).
For instance, if I can answer questions about the menu with a smile on my face, but it takes an hour for the customers to get their meal, I'll be lucky if I get fifteen percent. The moral character aspect of my job, taking care of the customers in a timely fashion, was violated, therefore the customers consider me a low-ethos waitress (and my tip goes down accordingly). Although I will say if I mix up two dishes while trying to explain them to the customers, my tip does not suffer as much.
This realization got me to think about if audiences value certain aspects of ethos, over others, like my customers value fast service more than knowledge of the menu. I think both my customers and an audience would agree that good moral character is the most important part of ethos. If someone giving a presentation simply mixes up a fact or mispronounces a word once, not much damage is done to the speaker's ethos. However, if a someone giving a presentation about immigration reform is revealed to be a racist, there is little he can do to salvage ethos. Even Sarah Palin's slip about our alliance with North Korea (she meant South Korea) is better than a racist giving a presentation on immigration reform. What do you think? Are some parts of ethos more valuable than other?
I wait tables for the tips. On a busy Saturday night I can make a decent amount of money, but only if I establish ethos with the customers. I need to know what I am talking about, have a pleasant attitude (even if I'm swamped), and make sure all of their needs are taken care of in a timely fashion. These correspond to the three necessary components of ethos in rhetoric, intelligence, good will towards the audience, and good moral character. All three of these things are necessary if I want a sizable tip. If just one is out of place, it can negatively affect the experience for everyone involved (including my bank account).
For instance, if I can answer questions about the menu with a smile on my face, but it takes an hour for the customers to get their meal, I'll be lucky if I get fifteen percent. The moral character aspect of my job, taking care of the customers in a timely fashion, was violated, therefore the customers consider me a low-ethos waitress (and my tip goes down accordingly). Although I will say if I mix up two dishes while trying to explain them to the customers, my tip does not suffer as much.
This realization got me to think about if audiences value certain aspects of ethos, over others, like my customers value fast service more than knowledge of the menu. I think both my customers and an audience would agree that good moral character is the most important part of ethos. If someone giving a presentation simply mixes up a fact or mispronounces a word once, not much damage is done to the speaker's ethos. However, if a someone giving a presentation about immigration reform is revealed to be a racist, there is little he can do to salvage ethos. Even Sarah Palin's slip about our alliance with North Korea (she meant South Korea) is better than a racist giving a presentation on immigration reform. What do you think? Are some parts of ethos more valuable than other?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Trolling on Facebook
Lately I've taken to what's commonly known as "trolling" my Quidditch friends on Facebook. "Trolling" is saying something inflammatory, extraneous, or completely off-topic online to provoke an emotional response from someone. After today's discussion of kairos, I couldn't help but notice that without meaning to some trolls provide the perfect opportunity for discussion of larger, more complex issues. Even comments as annoying as "the game" can spark a discussion of the realization that all desire and knowledge leads in one way or another to loss (or it can if you're Hank Green).
It's true that once that perfect moment to say something is gone, it's gone. You lost that opportunity. However, the internet troll has shown me that there are so many more different opportunities out there. Maybe you won't get the chance to convey your message at that moment, but the great thing about life is it will provide you with another moment. Just be sure you're ready the next time.
Also I'm sorry to all those who lost the game by reading this blog. If you have no idea what the game is I'll let Hank explain both the game and the lessons that we can learn from it.
It's true that once that perfect moment to say something is gone, it's gone. You lost that opportunity. However, the internet troll has shown me that there are so many more different opportunities out there. Maybe you won't get the chance to convey your message at that moment, but the great thing about life is it will provide you with another moment. Just be sure you're ready the next time.
Also I'm sorry to all those who lost the game by reading this blog. If you have no idea what the game is I'll let Hank explain both the game and the lessons that we can learn from it.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Comedy as Rhetoric
So I was grabbing some dinner in the West Wing tonight after Quidditch practice, when I saw comedian Ricky Gervais giving an interview on CNN about his recent performance at the Golden Globes. Apparently people felt his jibes at famous, rich, and good looking actors were a bit harsh. I didn't watch the Golden Globes, but my interest was peaked by the interview. I headed to YouTube to watch some of the highlights and I could not stop laughing. This got me wondering how some people could be offended by Gervais's comments, whereas I was laughing like a hyena.
I decided to take a look at the YouTube comments and found that most of people were not offended by Gervais's remarks. So if most people on YouTube weren't offended, then who was? Further investigation revealed that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), which organizes the Golden Globes, was offended by Gervais's comment about their acceptance of Cher tickets as a bribe for a nomination. Honestly, that doesn't surprise me. Of course the HFPA has to be offended by claims of bribery. They'd be in mountains of legal trouble if they weren't offended. As to the rest of the celebrities who were the brunt of Ricky's jibes, learn to take a joke.
If you take comedy as a form of rhetoric, there has to be good comedy and bad comedy, just like there is good rhetoric and bad rhetoric. Bad comedy often works around someone's opinion, like bad rhetoric, whereas good comedy aims at conveying truth, like good rhetoric. Most of Gervais's jokes did not tiptoe around people's feeling and opinions but went straight for the elephant in the room, the truth that everyone knows is there but no one is willing to acknowledge. No one should be offended by the truth. If you are it's most likely because the truth doesn't fit with your opinion.
Another important part of rhetoric is the delivery. Gervias's tone, while blunt, wasn't overly harsh or sarcastic, indicating what he said was meant in good fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously. If his delivery was particularly cutting or scathing, then I could understand why people would be offended; that tone is isolating and does not allow the audience to share in the joke, but that just wasn't the case. I don't think Gervais should be condemned for using good rhetoric, to make the audience laugh, do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)