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.