"Commenting" On: About Those Banners at Old Dominion (The Atlantic)

'"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." The frat bros should be ostracized and ignored from the ground up because they're jerks. ' Comments similar to these spark the heated, and reflective debates amongst public individuals whom strive to assert their opinions within the realm of the internet. In the present age, when word of a controversy spreads, most people reach for their laptop, and "google" the topic at hand, in order to "educate" themselves about the pressing issue. However, with comments as zealous and one-sided as the one above, how do we know if the information we are getting is opinionated or strictly factual? 

The controversy spectacled by the commenters ignites the underlying moralistic values each has embedded within themselves. For example, "I think flagging this sort of behaviour is an attempt to tackle rape culture, which undeniably exits in such places. How else would you propose progress be made than to highlight such incidences ?" The subconscious distress towards societal conflicts, like rape culture, produce a response in which the public utilizes somewhat comical articles, like one about university "frat" boys, as outlets to express the fear that their personal values are becoming undermined. This reaction results in emotional debates,ranging from  agitation, to aggression, to a cry of peace. 

Ultimately, the excessively personal connections condemn the factual interpretations of these articles- exaggerations should not form the basis of knowledge. However, personal assertions do not necessarily decrease one's credibility, as every individual holds the right to intellectual freedom of expression. Thus, as one's opinion appears credible in comparison to one's own values, a degree of validity is present within one's rationale. 

When assessing the validity of each argument, I searched for the well-composed, somewhat unbiased opinions. Although argumentative aspects are important in forming one's own opinion, they do not culminate to a basic understanding of a controversy. For instance, the user matterovermind commented "There's nothing "overblown" about this story for the reasons outlined by the author in this piece. Those banners were offensive and an insult to women. " When I first read this assertion, I saw only facts. The Frat boys specifically degraded women, which is a clear predecessor of sexual assaults and sexual harassment. But, as I read on, this user lost credibility. Their hostile tone created an agitated statement, which made me assume they were just searching for an argument ("...How can you not understand that?"). 

Overall, the comments provided new insights and perspectives on both sides of the argument that I hadn't before considered. The comments strengthened some of my personal opinions against the actions of the frat boys, but certainly did not open my opinions to defending the culprits. Most of the comments seemed belligerent and overly-personal, which created somewhat of a battle as opposed to an analysis of the situation. To conclude, I would say the comments stand for free entertainment, but should not be used to form intellectual responses. 

Rhetorical Reflections: Social Expectations and Verbal Reactions

Contrast the three rhetorical situations we discussed in class, and explain how your group was able to differentiate between them. Was the idea of analyzing the rhetorical situation new to you? Analyze the rhetorical situation of a recent attempt from your life when you were seeking to persuade someone. Describe the Audience, Context, and Purpose of your communication, and analyze its effectiveness. 

Picture stepping into an office, or potential place of employment for the first time. You have no idea what to expect of the other employees, and the pre-interview jitters start to sink in- only one thought is circling through your mind: what if I’m not good enough?

This shred of doubt-the tiny voice heard in the back of your head is the prime reason individuals strive to present themselves in the manners they do. With the knowledge of this doubt, my group was able to predict the words that displayed surface characteristics (diligence, organization, etc...) within the lists of vocabulary in class, and match them to the "employment section". Thus, I searched for words similar to how I would describe myself when identifying the categories of others' lists. 

When asked to describe myself to an employer, I would emphasize my abilities to focus, work well with others, and effectively manage customer service.  However, I would avoid recreational topics, like my favorite place to shop, or most-loved show on TV. 

Ultimately, these automatic answers stem from societal expectations and pressures of “professionalism” evident in modern culture. Employers and employees are reputed with strict relationships that discourage overly-personal perceptions of each other. As humans, we are naturally afraid of failure and vulnerability; for these reasons we tend to protect our deep emotions and feelings with surface traits that appear impressive or desirable.

Essentially, individuals attempt to mask their quirks that may be typically frowned upon, or seen as improper in order to depict the “best versions of themselves.” Personal assertions are accompanied by comfort; therefore, an environment that restricts free expression instills barriers that solely reflect specific characteristics suitable for corporate relations. 

The expected "interview-like" responses, however, are not always present. Recently, I was employed at Jamba Juice. This company focuses heavily on "making a difference", so in my interview I spoke about the international community service I take part in, and how it continues to inspire me. The rhetorical situation felt slightly different than a stereotypical interview because my boss asked me to share extremely personal information with him. I reflected on the ways in which my service has shaped my aspirations and career goals so that I can utilize my experiences in the future. I knew I had to persuade him that I was a driven person, and did not struggle with the task, due to my passion for philanthropy. After about 30 minutes of insightful conversation, I was awarded the job on the spot! 

However, when personal motives drive our actions, desirable characteristics shift. For example, imagine a first date. A common fear of awkward small talk, or incompatibility drive us to appear attractive, caring, funny, or romantic in order to impress the person of interest.

These expectations differ from those in a workplace in that they provide insight on a personal level to an individual. Presenting one’s self as caring and romantic holds far more emotional value than one’s organizational abilities, or attentiveness to customer service. Traits like these made it easy for my group to distinguish which words fell under the romantic category. The connections formed on a personal level can only be achieved through comfort and trust, which can’t always be found in an office of employment. 

One of the most personal environments is our place of residence. It is extremely difficult to live with someone who does not value  the same beliefs or practices that we do as individuals. Due to the subconscious attraction of like-minded selves, we seek to surround ourselves with those who will understand and support us, mainly to form the network of comfort and acceptance that we naturally crave. 

For example, I just moved into a dorm with my roommate of choice. I picked my best friend to live with me so that we wouldn't run into awkward situations, or find ourselves not getting along over small things. My roommate and I share an understanding in both making our beds, respecting each others' space, and helping each other with homework. For these reasons, I assessed the rhetorical situation the same way anyone else would-I knew my best friend met the criteria of whom I was looking for in a roommate, due to more reasons than the fact that we are very closely tied.  

Thus, when picking a roommate, many of us are very particular. From surface characteristics, like finding importance in cleanliness or timeliness, to emotional affiliations (religion, political beliefs, etc…) we search for individuals we see as compatible to our own psyches. Professional barriers are often not considered, as the norm of  a “home” is viewed as a sanctuary of relaxation which generally is not expected in a place of employment. 

With levels of personality considered, it is clear that humans act based off of comfort. The individuals we are emotionally attached to receive different displays of affection and trust than those viewed as authoritative in daily routines. The differences in personal presentation do not necessarily lessen authenticity or sincerity but simply highlight the societal expectations and norms that cumulatively shape one’s perception of comfort.