Rhetoric, Facebook, And The Election

Rhetoric, Facebook, And The Election

These are the thoughts of a young scholar trying to understand how all of these connect to one another.
11
views

During the course of this semester, I’ve developed a list of concepts that I use regularly to help me understand the practice of writing and speaking. The concepts that I keep going back to are stasis, commonplaces, and audience. Stasis is something that helps me understand arguments and why they go unsolved. Commonplaces help me understand why arguments are made and why we keep going back to the same arguments over and over again. Audience is something that I struggled to understand in the beginning, but over the past few weeks I began to understand the importance of the person who is targeted in the conversation and how they affect the outcome of the argument.

Since it so happened that the election of our new president happened during this course, I thought about all three of these concepts frequently, especially on my social media pages. I started to not pay so much attention to the closed-mindedness of the people on my Facebook page and tried to put myself into their shoes to understand where they were coming from with their ideas. For example, I made a single Facebook post during the election that read “This is a reminder that your feelings are legitimate. Don't let anyone take them away from you. Your concerns, opinions, thoughts, and feelings are what define you as a person. If you're upset, be upset. If you're happy, be happy. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't express these things”. Then, the first reply to this was immediately “what about all these idiots expressing their feelings by burning their homes and towns down? is that ok too? Don't answer I'm just expressing my opinion”. Instead of being outraged by this comment because I didn’t say a single thing about politics, the protests that were happening, or actions that were happening, I decided to look at this like a rhetorician, for my own sanity.

My audience for this post was everyone on my Facebook page. The context of this post could have been viewed by any of the hundreds of people who’ve seen it a different way. The individual who read it and responded first misinterpreted what I was trying to say and took it as I was making an excuse for the violent protests that broke out in our nation. This is audience working not in my favor. The first response says “Don’t answer I’m just expressing my opinion” but this is a silencing technique to everyone else who wants to reply to this thread, that I’m very clearing saying that I don’t support. After this initial response, two other individuals decided to use my post as a political war ground and go back and forth with each other about the new President-elect. After minutes of reading all of this political garbage that somehow found its way on to my post, I realized that these two very clear cut radical Republicans and this one open minded Liberal were in a battle that wouldn’t be solved. They weren’t reaching stasis because the two Republicans were using commonplaces to silence the Liberal such as “just deal with it” and “that’s just how it is”, along with a lot of vulgar, to fight for their opinion. I believe that stasis is never achieved when one of the groups tries to silence the other.

The most expertise that I’ve gathered from this course was learning to channel my anger into a better argument. I connect writing and speaking closely now and I pay a lot more attention to the arguments that happen around me all over social media. I understand now that knowing who you’re speaking to and reaching to them effectively is a lot more challenging than I’ve ever thought of previously. Meanings can be misconstrued depending on who is listening. Silencing is a technique that happens in every argument that never reaches stasis. People keep bringing up the same arguments over and over again and using the same responses to these arguments, which is another reason why change never happens.

I understand arguments as much more complicated than “I’m right, you’re wrong”

Cover Image Credit: openclipart.org

Popular Right Now

​An Open Letter To The People Who Don’t Tip Their Servers

This one's for you.
1484086
views

Dear Person Who Has No Idea How Much The 0 In The “Tip:" Line Matters,

I want to by asking you a simple question: Why?

Is it because you can't afford it? Is it because you are blind to the fact that the tip you leave is how the waiter/waitress serving you is making their living? Is it because you're just lazy and you “don't feel like it"?

Is it because you think that, while taking care of not only your table but at least three to five others, they took too long bringing you that side of ranch dressing? Or is it just because you're unaware that as a server these people make $2.85 an hour plus TIPS?

The average waiter/waitress is only supposed to be paid $2.13 an hour plus tips according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

That then leaves the waiter/waitress with a paycheck with the numbers **$0.00** and the words “Not a real paycheck." stamped on it. Therefore these men and women completely rely on the tips they make during the week to pay their bills.

So, with that being said, I have a few words for those of you who are ignorant enough to leave without leaving a few dollars in the “tip:" line.

Imagine if you go to work, the night starts off slow, then almost like a bomb went off the entire workplace is chaotic and you can't seem to find a minute to stop and breathe, let alone think about what to do next.

Imagine that you are helping a total of six different groups of people at one time, with each group containing two to 10 people.

Imagine that you are working your ass off to make sure that these customers have the best experience possible. Then you cash them out, you hand them a pen and a receipt, say “Thank you so much! It was a pleasure serving you, have a great day!"

Imagine you walk away to attempt to start one of the 17 other things you need to complete, watch as the group you just thanked leaves, and maybe even wave goodbye.

Imagine you are cleaning up the mess that they have so kindly left behind, you look down at the receipt and realize there's a sad face on the tip line of a $24.83 bill.

Imagine how devastated you feel knowing that you helped these people as much as you could just to have them throw water on the fire you need to complete the night.

Now, realize that whenever you decide not to tip your waitress, this is nine out of 10 times what they go through. I cannot stress enough how important it is for people to realize that this is someone's profession — whether they are a college student, a single mother working their second job of the day, a new dad who needs to pay off the loan he needed to take out to get a safer car for his child, your friend, your mom, your dad, your sister, your brother, you.

If you cannot afford to tip, do not come out to eat. If you cannot afford the three alcoholic drinks you gulped down, plus your food and a tip do not come out to eat.

If you cannot afford the $10 wings that become half-off on Tuesdays plus that water you asked for, do not come out to eat.

If you cannot see that the person in front of you is working their best to accommodate you, while trying to do the same for the other five tables around you, do not come out to eat. If you cannot realize that the man or woman in front of you is a real person, with their own personal lives and problems and that maybe these problems have led them to be the reason they are standing in front of you, then do not come out to eat.

As a server myself, it kills me to see the people around me being deprived of the money that they were supposed to earn. It kills me to see the three dollars you left on a $40 bill. It kills me that you cannot stand to put yourself in our shoes — as if you're better than us. I wonder if you realize that you single-handedly ruined part of our nights.

I wonder if maybe one day you will be in our shoes, and I hope to God no one treats you how you have treated us. But if they do, then maybe you'll realize how we felt when you left no tip after we gave you our time.

Cover Image Credit: Hailea Shallock

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Sociolinguistics Series: Part 50

Language is a powerful tool.

182
views

It's part 50--halfway to 100! I'm so glad to still be here writing! In this section, we will talk about Dr. Shikaki's findings on how Palestinians view the state of Israel.

25 years ago, 85% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution. 10 years ago, this number decreased to 70%. Dr. Shikaki believes this was due to an increase in the prominence of Islamism in Palestinian society during the second intifada; Islamists were opposed to the two-state solution. In the most recent survey, the December 2018 one, only 43% of Palestinians supported the two state solution.

In 2000, American President Bill Clinton met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat at the Camp David Summit to come up with a solution to the conflict. It ended without an agreement, but in December of 2000, Clinton once again proposed a resolution: the Clinton Parameters.

The content of the Parameters basically allowed Israel to annex settlements while Palestine to take 94-96% of the West Bank, as well as Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. There were other guidelines regarding territory, refugees, security, and the end of the conflict. Essentially, the West Bank would have been split up by Israeli roads and settlements--which is kind of the reality today.

Both the Israeli government and Arafat accepted the terms with reservations, and Arafat wrote to Clinton a letter asking for clarifications on the terms. Clinton and Dennis Ross, an envoy of the Parameters, publicized that Arafat had refused to accept the terms; they painted Palestinians in a negative light, saying that Israel wanted to accept the peace negotiations but Palestine did not.

American Lawyer Robert Malley was at the Camp David Summit and oversaw parts of the Clinton Parameters. In 2001, he said that three myths had come out of the failure of both negotiations, and that these three myths were dangerous to any future peace processes if people kept believing in them.

These myths are as follows: "Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions," "Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations," and "The Palestinians made no concession of their own."

He said that these three statements were not true but very heavily publicized by America and Israel after the negotiations failed; rather, there is more nuance to each of these issues, and America and Israel have just as much responsibility in the failure of the Summit and Parameters as Palestine did. Malley wrote, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality."

Anyway, what does this have to do with Dr. Shikaki? He polled Palestinians not only on the their attitudes to the two-state solution, but the Clinton Parameters as well. 25 years ago, there was 60% support for the Clinton Parameters by Palestinians, but the June 2018 poll showed that the number had gone down to 37%.

The last ten years shows a significant decrease in public support for both the two-state solution and the Clinton Parameters, and it could be a result of disagreeing with specific parts of the proposals (such as how the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock or Jerusalem is delegated).

I did some further digging when I got home, and I found this data from the UN Division for Palestinian Rights website:

"A 25 December [2000] published poll found that 48% of the 501 Israelis questioned were opposed to the proposals; 57% would object to Palestinian control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound; 72% were against even a limited return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. A 29 December published poll found that 56% of the Israelis would oppose a peace agreement reached on the basis of the Parameters."

This shows that though public media--especially Western media--may have painted the Palestinian government as the villain (and Israel and America as the "victims"), the proposals accepted by either government had varied support among its people.

The Israeli civilian population did not want to accept the Clinton Parameters because of the way certain things would be resolved; their reservations lie with the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque because the Temple Mount, which is the holiest site in the world for Jews, would have been given to Palestine, while Jews would have control of the Western Wall of the Temple Mount (which is the status quo).

In addition, there was a section in the Clinton Parameters that dealt with the right of return for Palestinians, where there would be a certain number of Palestinian refugees who settled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while other Palestinians either would become citizens of their host countries, move to a third-party country, or settle back into the land that is Israel Proper (with permission from the Israeli government, of course); many Israelis did not support this.

That was the public opinion years ago. Today, there is even less support for these proposals. Dr. Shikaki outlined three issues as reasons for a decrease in support of compromise, which we will cover in the next section. Stay tuned!

Related Content

Facebook Comments