Words May Never Hurt Me? Yea, right!

Title

Words may never hurt me?

Author

Mitchell, Anna

Publication title

University Wire

Publication year

2013

Publication date

Oct 14, 2013

Year

2013

Section

Opinion

Publisher

Uloop, Inc.

Place of publication

Carlsbad

Country of publication

United States

Publication subject

General Interest Periodicals--United States

Source type

Newspapers

Language of publication

English

Document type

News

ProQuest document ID

1441706425

Document URL

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/docview/1441706425?accountid=14473

Copyright

© 2013 UWIRE, a division of Uloop

Last updated

2013-10-14

Database

ProQuest Education Journals

Words May Never Hurt Me

Anna Mitchell from Colorado State University in Fort Collins wrote this very compelling article that finally brought the points I felt are very important in today's technological world.  She wrote a blog back when she was in middle school and it contained a lot of "protected" blog posts that were supposed to be only viewable for herself.  However, that was not the case.  The mother of a classmate felt that Anna's was out to harm her daughter and paid the blog company money to gain access to her files.  From there she continued to print and share a copy for the school counselor, the local police, another classmate's mom, Anna's personal therapist, and Anna's mother.  At thirteen years old, this was an extremely traumatizing and violating experience.  She continues to argue at this age of instant information, nothing you say is private.  She is right!  She does compare the analogy of the "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words never hurt me" with the reality that we were never really taught about the damage our own words can do to us themselves.  She mentions the Paula Deen issue where she loses her financial empire because of using the "N-Word" in the past.  We are our own enemies.  Leaving anonymous posts does not guarantee you will remain anonymous either, if they want to find out, they will.  She also talks about using self censorship first.  If there are some real psychological issues, the use of a trained professional as a platform would be wiser rather than posting it into a blog.  It is important to get the psychological health tended to and to grow from that assistance. 

For so many reasons this particular article seemed to really resonate with me.  I find too often that everyone bears too much online.  Many of things we post and talk about can be things to come back and haunt us later.  It is better to show self restraint and try not to use bad judgment on the types of things we leave out for the world to read.  Even in the case of Paula Deen, never leaving anything to chance that could come back to ruin your success.  In today's world people are quick to judge and will use your own words to "hang" you out to dry.  Anna Mitchell's last line truly states what practice we should use, "There is no insurance that things you say won't turn against you.  You are your own best line of defense".  For everyone, it is better to be smart about what we do and say in public.  It's amazing how fast things can circulate and how fast people are ready to point out your mistakes.  It is too bad that the author had to go through that at such a young age, it should not have happened.  Surely there are laws to protect underage children from prying eyes?  This is one of my main concerns that does not sit well with me while reading this article.  How was it possible that a stranger had access to these private blogs and then did not have any retribution from showing these blogs to several other people other than her parents?  That should not be legal.  As much as I agree with the author's points throughout her article, mainly to do with watching your words and what you say, but the 13 year old losing her privacy to a menacing mother of another child.  That is disturbing.  If there is to be any lesson to be learned from this, we need to make stricter law for children under 18 and not allow others to gain access to those files for any cost.  When we are young, we do not know the consequences of our actions as fully as we do when we are adults.  It was not fair for that child to have to go through the pain and humiliation as a result from her private thoughts that she thought were that, private. 

 

 

Liking is for Cowards but it is Where I Lived, and What I Lived For that is the question!

In Jonathan Franzen's article "Liking is for Cowards. Go for What Hurts" he touches on many hidden meanings that we need to be sure to pick up on in our readings upon our realizations of technology and our own basic lives.  He begins to his audience about the old Blackberry Pearl and replacing it with a new device, referring to it as if it is a person.  He mentions many human-related aspects such as: trust issues, accountability issues, compatibility issues as well as sanity issues.  All of these are important aspects to living life with people.  Ironically though, as he digs further into his writings he begins to and talks about FaceBook and other technologies that allow us to give to us instantly and asks us for nothing.  This become perplexing because he then goes on to talk about being likable and realizing although technology can be an extension of ourselves , however, we still may feel contempt for people who like us because it may not be for the very reasons of whom we really are. 

In the New York Times article written by Jonathan Franzen he talks about how great technology is for us and how it becomes adept at creating products that correspond to our fantasy ideal of an erotic relationship; "gives everything, instantly, and make us feel powerful".  He uses examples of how we want to be likeable and create cool personas who aren't really who we are.  That in reality we don't want to reveal our true selves because we fear rejection and it would be just too painful.  It is funny because we all desire to be liked and censor ourselves on a daily basis to everything we do or say involving any Social Media platforms. To "be liked" on Facebook, every post, every picture you share we want to see "likes" because it deems us a relevant and well sought after.  But, in this quest we have to be "liked", we may not be true to who we really are and feel a sense of despair because people don't really like us for  we realize people don't like us for who we really truly are.  Franzen is talking about being true to yourself and feeling the pain.  The fear of rejection is a a real true human feeling and shouldn't be avoided because it really means you are living.  All this technology stuff just give us an instant gratification to our immediate needs and likability, however, long term it doesn't satisfy our ultimate goal in being happy with who we are.  It is being fake or being real, that is our choice.  Are we a person? Or a result of a consumer-related product?   

Comparing Jonathan Franzen's article to Thoreau's "Where I Lived, and What I Lived for" is very interesting.  Thoreau's essay was written back in 1854, whereas Franzen's was written recently in 2011.  However, tThe same underlying message lies in both of them which is the need for people to be liked.  "Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundless truths, while reality is fabulous".  Thoreau is talking about people being something they aren't.  In Franzen's article he states, "There is no such thing as a person whose real self you like every particle of.  This is why a world of liking is ultimately a lite.  But there is such a thing as a person whose real self you love every particle of.  And this is why love is such an existential threat to the techno-consumerist order, it exposes the lie." Both of these men in their own times came to a similar conclusion, being someone you're not is not who we are, however, who we are make us the person we want to be.  We get upset even if we pretend to be someone we aren't because the people that we meet do not know the difference, they see and accept the persona, but not the real person.  Jonathan Frazen's article conveyed the message of Technology and the likability factor.  Henry David Thoreau was talking about building the railroad, the faster pace of the cities, and then living in the country  Their journeys, even though they appeared different, came to the same conclusion.  An interesting paradox considering they were written 150 years apart.  It shows us the human race's basic instincts and observations never really change, even if the technologies and advances do.  Today's technology is compared to the railroad's building back in the 1800s.  The railroad was a sign of change back then to what technologies are taking place now.  Thoreau's comment, "We do not ride the railroad; it rides upon us." is a direct correlation to that of Franzen talking about the "Telos of Techne" to replace our natural world.  Interesting but yet both equally as powerful.

Instant Messaging and the Future of Language

References

Baron, N. S. (2005). Instant Messaging and the Future of Language. Communications Of The ACM, 48(7), 29-31.

 

Instant Messaging and the Future of Language

 

In this viewpoint article written by Naomi S. Baron, she conveys the idea that writing has evolved eventually into this new modern age era of IM'ing, texting, and other forms of computer-mediated communication.  She questions whether this era is degrading the language.  Her comparisons of time periods throughout history outlines how written English has evolved.  The shape of written language has always been as much a product of social attitudes and educational values as of technological developments.  I believe, as time has gone by through the centuries and the styles of writing have changed during those times, each generation has left their own upgraded version of a newer writing style.  I feel IM'ing is no different.  I believe that as we are thinking and communicating through a medium such as a computer, cell phone, tablet, and/or whatever medium we choose, we are exercising our minds and making an effort to communicate through our words.  Our words are in a form of writing; therefore that written language is forever engraved into that medium.  I think there is just as much meaning in a few words today describing the very same thing that was written hundreds of years ago, that may have been written on several pages, but still convey the same feeling.  Our world has changed so much with automation that it allows us to get right to the point and convey our message just as effectively.  I think it's wonderful that young people use these various forms of mediums as communication because it shows that they can indeed read and write.  How they choose to express themselves, through any medium, should be encouraged to ensure they develop, learn, and grow their writing skills naturally.  Giving them the freedom to express themselves in any writing medium is a good thing.  I would be more worried if they chose not to write at all and had no sense or caring of the world around them.  I would hope they would care.

 

 

The Flight From Conversation

In the New York Times article by Sherry Turtle called "The Flight From Conversation", the author conveys that even though we live in a technological universe where we are always communicating, we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.  She uses many examples showing this phenomenon.  We now live in a society where we can choose to pay attention to only what interests us. All the physical face-to-face interaction has become less and less.  We are "plugging" in/out of life and she gives us many examples of situations nowadays that show this happening.  Our obsession with technology has changed how we converse with one another virtually rather than physically.

As much as I'd like to acknowledge that the author is right, by my own experience with technology I cannot say that in my own life that this is true.  She states the following opinion in her article: We are tempted to think that our little "sips" of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation.  but they don't.  Email, Twitter, Facebook, all of these places - in politics, commerce, romance and friendship.  but no matter how valuable, they do not substitute for conversation.  I completely disagree with this statement.  Sixteen years ago I met my husband online via a chat room.  We now have been happily married for over 15 years!  Because of the way we met we were able to make a real connection and really get to know each other.  Even at the same time, I had been dating two guys in person and still did not get the same connection with them as I did with my new boyfriend online at the time.  Because of our chance encounter online and the chance to get to know each other, I know emphatically that the power of technology did in fact contribute to the conversation we developed and was indeed more than a mere connection.  It was through the power of connecting with each other through our online conversations in the chat rooms and the emails that would follow us in the off hours, we instantly had a great connection.  So much so that it far exceeded that to those gentlemen that I knew in person first.  We could be real and honest online.  When those that date in person for the first time, one can get infatuated with the look or antics of their dating partner.  This could affect whether you choose to get to know the person furthermore.  However, because you may not have taken the time to further develop the relationship because perhaps the person was not good looking enough, you may never know what you let get away.  I feel people tend to be their real selves online.  Whether is through a post on Facebook, a "tweet" from twitter, or a simple email exchange between two people there is always a true sense of what you are feeling.  It is true, people can lie and make you believe they aren't what they type of themselves, but the same happens in real life interactions in person too.  This new world of virtual connecting allows us to be more real.  We may say and think things outloud we may not do otherwise. 

Right to Remain Silent....or not

In the podcast on This American Life "Right to Remain Silent" describing Joe Lipari's experience after posting a Facebook status gone wrong the author shows that sometimes some people will never change, or feel the need to change because of their actions.

Joe Lipari is 34 years old and was born in Passaic, New Jersey.  It is well known that most people from his parts are more mouthy than most other people.  It has started at a young age and he was even thrown out of school for cussing at a nun.  He even mentions with that experience how ironic it was because they were supposed to be forgiving.  In another example, he talks about his experience in the military and how he did talk back to his drill sergeant.  However, he justified it this time because the drill sergeant was telling him to cut his sideburns.  Joe recited to the drill sergeant the military's regulations on sideburns from memory.  Joe was indeed correct. This give us an indication that Joe is not the type of person that backs down from conflict.  Even as he is faced with the consequences he will continue to fight back.

In September of 2009 Joe purchased his first IPhone.  Like the rest of his friends, he thought it would be cool to own one.  The joy of owning one did not last long, it did not work right away.  He then made an appointment and they supposedly fixed it.  The next day, the phone did not work again.  Joe went down to the Apple Store after work.  They told him it would be a two hour wait since he did not have an appointment.  Even after 2 hours, they informed it would still be another two hours of waiting.  He got mad and left the Apple Store.  It was the ramifications of what he was about to do next that got him into a whole lot of trouble. Joe was still pretty mad and matter didn't help any as he proceeded to smoke pot and watch the movie "Fight Club" while perusing Facebook at the same time.  Once a scene from the movie popped up, it inspired Joe to post a status to his Facebook.  The content of the status was the following,

"Joe Lipari might walk into it Apple Store on Fifth Avenue with an ArmaLite AR-10 gas-powered semiautomatic weapon and pump round after round into one of those smug, fruity little concierges. This may be someone you've known for years, someone very, very close to you."

It wasn't too long after he posted this on Facebook that the cops showed up on his doorstep.  They searched his apartment and noticed that he was still high from smoking pot.  This did not help his situation.  He was told he was going downtown for questioning by Homeland Security. 

Facebook Friends - how to control this chaotic friend's list

The comic I chose was a man waking up the next morning looking at his laptop and seeing that he gained 30 more friends on Facebook overnight.  Obviously, this individual may have been drunk the night before while on Facebook and did not recall what he had done.

Facebook is a phenomenon that is unlike anything else out there in history.  It's immediate response and chance to connect instantly, which is too easy and scary.  I use Facebook on a daily basis and had to become very selective about what image I want to convey to my Facebook audience.  I've tried to just keep it to family and close friends, but slowly but surely fellow co-workers, old bosses, and students of mine keep popping up with requests.  Eventually I break down and add them into my friends' lists.  When I saw the above cartoon, it made me crack up because I literally have turned around after a few weeks and gawked at my account when I realized that the 200 friends I thought I had was really like 300.  Keeping this list down has been a challenge.

This whole Facebook thing has presented me with a challenge of how I relate to people, especially those that I never really considered a part of my life.  I have former co-workers that I dropped because I felt enough time had done by that their usefulness may have expired.  However, sometimes I receive a message back inquiring why I deleted this from my friends list and they would like to be added again.  It is very awkward.  There is no way to avoid these conversations and all the sudden now I don't really like this bold, too automatic intrusive new social tool.  It's a bit ridiculous.  Now, I am having to justify to my current bosses why I don't make it a habit to have my bosses on my Facebook.  However, I still have my old bosses that I have added after I left that job.  What is really appropriate when dealing with former bosses?  There should be some type of etiquette on how we use Facebook with the various types of categorizations of people in our lives. 

Combing through my friends list and having to make tough choices on which friends stays and which ones go.  It's an awful predicament.  There have been a few times when I thankfully got rid of someone whom was annoying.  They post constantly to Facebook with random, scary thoughts that make you see them in a light that perhaps is not flattering.  A close family friend who was a former babysitter of mine had lost her mother a few years ago, whom was a close friend of my father.  One good example was with a former babysitter of mine.  She was a close family friend.  However, a few years ago her mother passed away.  Her mother was a very dear friend of my father.  The death of her mother led to many personal problems including: divorce, alcoholism, and other issues that contributed to her downfall.  It was apparent she was a bit unstable, to say in the least.  Her constant rants and statuses on Facebook concerned me.  After reading one of her posts, I would be call my mother and ask her what an earth was this all about?  I finally had to drop her because it was so emotionally exhausting to read her crazy statuses and commentsbvious life failures that I couldn't take it anymore.  Others in my family did the same too.  Finally peace again.  She has tried to add me back a few times since, I have "ignored" these requests.  My mother was not so lucky and felt guilty and added her back again.  I hear it's more of the same again and now my mother is regretting once again this addition to her friend's list.

The introduction of Social Media has changed how we communicate with each other forever.  Gone are the days of phone calls and writing letters.  Even writing an email is not the norm anymore. How we relate to each other now is very odd if you compared our social skills from 20 years ago.