We had some discussion over key points, some side conversations, and lots of conversation about how we don't like that we're sitting here. Some people left, more people stayed. Wait, the final paper is 15+ pages about myself in relation to my grade? Do not want.
Andrejevic's book was making me angry last night; not because I disagree but because I agree, I see it happening, and it's upsetting to me (Yes, I read the whole two chapters).
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
The heralding by technologists and politicians and assholes (Murdoch) about the internet democratizing being placed alongside examples from earlier communicative technological advancements was especially keen. This is... [CLASS ENDED AND A WELL DRESSED MAN EVICTED US-ADDENDUM AFTER I'VE EATEN LUNCH IS BELOW THE JUMP]
...a sentence that I don't remember the direction of before I closed the lid on my computer! Time for a new sentence, and... go: I think it would be particularly interesting to tap into the inner-workings of the minds of the people making these claims; do they truly believe this? Do they recognize the self-serving nature of their stance? If so, entirely selfishly or diluted by a partial belief in their argument or perhaps from a overreaching belief that what is self-serving to them is a means to a positive end for all? Example: Politician believes Thing A will be good for the populace, but it is unpopular, so he/she/it (reptilian conspiracy, anyone?) campaigns on Thing B instead. Brought together with the new reality of database-driven campaigns and their ability to focus their pitch to the individual voter's stances on Things B-Z on a person-by-person basis, they won't likely need to address Thing A at all. Note in this scenario that the politician believes they aren't acting only in self-interest, but in a way that in the end genuinely benefits the electorate. In the case that the politician's stance on all Things A-Z is excellent, I would consider this the best case scenario for this type of obfuscation that stems from this new reality. Unfortunately, it's still wack as hell. That said, this is not the way that things work and one would have to be frighteningly naive to believe this a realistic playing out of events.
The breakdown in the democratic process is appallingly clear once campaigns are run in this manner. There is a sense that the citizen's voice is being heard if it changes the nature of the arguments that are presented to them, but this is not a meaningful change. The likelihood of a politician voting on a certain issue is not affected by these types of interactions with citizens, the only change is in the way that the politicians pitch their candidacy to the individual. If the politician is not taking the citizen's feedback as relevant toward their political stances, then there is no representation. We know that in the United States the representation has never resembled this ideal type of feedback relationship, but came in the form of elections every once in a while of those that the citizenry felt best represented them. In the case that the electorate is not provided the full spectrum of a politician's stances on a variety of issues (ignoring lots of other depressing factors involved...) then it is impossible for them to choose a representative that exemplifies their viewpoints.
Perhaps I will write more later, I am noticing that I am only talking about a small portion of Chapter 7 instead of lots of other things that struck me as relevant.
the final paper is 15+ pages about myself in relation to my grade.
ReplyDeleteWhat?
I think it was Katherine who mentioned it, and then others supported it. I knew about the paper, I didn't realize the length requirement.. although at 20% of the grade as it currently stands, I can see why it would need to be so long.. I just don't know how I could write that much. :X
ReplyDeleteRe your comment--I thought you could write endlessly??
ReplyDeleteRe your title: what does it mean?
What else struck you as relevant?
umm I do not think everyone should be concerned with the final paper, if I am not mistaken we have another one due on April 21st...meaning we will be getting the questions in a few weeks...*food for though*
ReplyDeleteI could write endlessly, unless it's for class, remember?
ReplyDeleteThe title is just for me, almost non-sequitur, refers to a jingle for a fake product from a television show--"Not my real dad" and it's what popped into my head. The class was different that day, like a different dad? No, maybe not.
I feel like all I see everywhere are continuous feedback loops that undermine my worldview. The sentence I just erased here exemplified, perhaps, where much of the problem lies. I wrote something about wanting one that benefited ME... selfish. I use my copy of Atlas Shrugged to kill bugs and hold my window open during the summer.
The relationship between fearmongering and faux-empowerment. Faux empowerment as a remedy for fear, fear a remedy for real empowerment, no real connection besides a trainline between fear and the voluntary scale-back of our privacy, agency, skepticism, etc. etc. Oh, and corporate profits, we can't forget those.
I liked the comparison between surveillance after Nixon's scandals and contemporarily, and as we all know Obama has kept up the good fight and let the telecom companies off the hook, etc.
Things are generally appalling.