RhetorClick - User contributions [en]

Digital Satire

2012-07-30T17:35:34Z

Jeff: /* Memes */ ??

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion consisting of various methods used in attempting to persuade an audience.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric</ref> A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref> Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively. It is essential to understand how to use logos, pathos, and ethos in order to effectively persuade your audience. There are five cannons of rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Using the five canons of rhetoric you can build an effective argument.

Rhetoric aims to improve speech skills by improving the way a speaker of a specialized audience speaks to his or her audience<ref>day1</ref>.

=== Satire ===

Satire being a more literary genre which is seen to use more of a sense of criticism towards a specific person or group<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms.

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant" (Frye) - but parody, and burlesque are frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satire is used to make a mockery of an individual or group that has failed to act as the followers of the individual or group wanted them to. Satire is usually applied to a subject where the failed individual or group has failed in<ref>day1</ref>.

Satirical works often contain "straight" humour. Laughter is not an essential component of satire,(Corum 175)[[fix this citation]] as in spectrum of satire there are types that are not meant to arise laughter and be "funny".

Conversely, not all humour is necessarily "satirical", even on such topics as politics, religion or art, or even when it uses the satirical tools of irony, parody, and burlesque <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satirical playwright Dario Fo pointed out the difference between satire and teasing. Teasing is the reactionary side of the comic, it limits itself to a shallow parody of physical appearance. Satire instead uses the comic to go against power and its oppressions, has a subversive character, and a moral dimension which draws judgement against its targets <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Teasing is an ancient form of simple buffoonery, a form of comedy without satire's subversive edge. Teasing includes light and affectionate parody, good-humoured mockery, simple one-dimensional poking fun, benign spoofs. Teasing typically consists in a impersonation of someone monkeying around with his exterior attributes, tics, physical blemishes, voice and mannerisms, quirks, way of dressing and walking, the phrases he typically repeats. By contrast, teasing never touches on the core issue, never makes a serious criticism judging the target with irony; it never harms the target's conduct, ideology and position of power; it never undermines the perception of his morality and cultural dimension <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Critics tend to see irony, parody, and satire as diminishing meaning (by belittling the subject), but as Harold Bloom reminds us, the great ironists such as Shakespeare tended to expand meaning (13)[[fix this citation]]. Satire is provocative, not dismissive - a crucial point that critics typically ignore when assessing its role in public discourse <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>.

Test argues that play and laughter constitute and define all satiric undertakings and distinguish it from other forms of aesthetic expression with which it is sometimes confused with "humor, comedy, social criticism, parody, burlesque, farce and travesty"(13)[[fix this citation]].

Again, there has been some controversy over whether laughter is a necessary component or distinguishing feature of satire. Laughter is ultimately something satire may or may not produce within the audience. It is not something that resides in the artistic expression itself. Satire does not need to be funny. <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions <ref>http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/E/enthymeme.htm</ref>.The meaning of enthymemes has to do with an unanswered statement which is made by a person, which allows someone to find the conclusion of the statement on their own by being able to understand the statement <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme</ref>. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. A skillful use of satire can engage the audience in a more constructive way by appealing to its imagination as well as engaging the intellect <ref> http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0</ref>Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is looked to, for its ability to unmask and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy <Ref>Day 12</Ref>.The image of physically unveiling something or someone is one that recurs again and again in discussions of satire<Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.12</ref>. Also, satire has been feared and banned because it is seen as a powerful force (Feinberg)<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf</ref>[[fix this citation]]. I would even argue that contemporary, mediatized political satire is being mobilized in a fairly populist register, as seemingly average Joes attempt to take down the mighty <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.9</ref>.
Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of Jon Stewart <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE</ref> and Stephen Colbert <ref>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879</ref>, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

According to Hutcheon <ref>Day 12</ref> a more idealistic view holds that satire and irony have "the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very 'sites' of discourse." Also, Lillian and Edward Bloom go on to explain, that satire ultimately has little political effect because it does not in itself initiate change and, in fact, rarely encourages it <ref>Day 12</ref>.

Satire can play a big role in public debate. There are bloggers that post ideas anonymously on the internet, and there are people that challenge those in power <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.
Also, certain tools lend themselves more fully to digital satire to give back to society. The internet is a good tool based on the fact that anyone can use it <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011), pp. 11-13.</Ref>. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" <Ref>Day 21</Ref>. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.
3.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

Having the identity as being "anonymous" is seen for people who want to keep their information that they post private, or they could be scared about the backlash of any comments that might be made.But for you to create an identity online you might create a blog, or twitter, or have facebook to have yoourself know for the digital world.

For satire to be effective, it must be sincere at the core, it must allow others to build an understanding between the idea of satire and its viewpoint.Day argues that ''ironic authenticity'' is to satire what ''credibility'' is to traditional argumentation. Just because satire is comedic does not mean it is not at the same time serious; and since satire is becoming increasingly popular, she asserts, "for many, irony is becoming a new marker of sincerity."<ref>Day 42</ref>

Digital Satire allows collaboration through social networks, with the result being potentially better than a smaller team. This vastly more unlimited vehicle takes advantage of more creative talents at work on a project, and at the same time overthrows the need for an institutionalized structure traditionally required for such collaboration, as Clay Shirky points out."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref> Digital satire created in this way becomes the product of a group effort that potentially maximizes its value in the social marketplace of ideas. The value of Digital Satire will allow certain product in the digital world to made an impact to the world.

Satire puts more action rather than factual information to the news. The news is used to give factual information and NOT persuade anyone with the information given while digital satire uses the news and rhetoric techniques to influence and persuade its audience of a factual information being , blatantly put, "stupid<ref>day4week4</ref>." The goal of the daily news is to give you what has been informed to a certain indiviual from other indiviual who ahs collected all this data. Where as digital satire takes what has been reported and puts a new twist to things and makes you see it in different ways rather then so narrow minded.

When satire derives from news which is originally or secondarily hosted online, they involve far fewer impersonations, sketches based around politician's personal foibles, and entirely made-up news items. Instead, they rely heavily on deconstructions of real news events, as well as interviews or ambushes of actual public figures, blending the mimetic and the real. They tread a much finer line between news and entertainmen, satire and political argument. This has thrust these programs into serious public debate and creating much cultural anxiety. <ref>Day, 43</ref>

Digital satire uses social media to express opinions and information in a satirical way. It uses more action to express information rather than just facts as the news would do which can potentially bring more attention to the topic at hand, bringing more audience to its news.

Satire has not just perpective to it, rather it has many different ones, but the goal of satire is to get your point or messgae across, and do it in a sarcastic, and humorous way.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity vs. Privacy ===

Danah Boyd looks at the changing faces of “Networked Privacy,” asserting that U.S. privacy laws of the 1970s are not applicable in 2010 and furthermore that there is no current agreement on “what privacy is, or what it means to actually protect it in the first place.” She points to a mother who created a public webpage of her family’s genealogy that included maiden names, the most common internet security question, as an example of the conflict between the desire for social connectedness and privacy.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>

Some argue that the internet’s public nature must be preserved if it is to act as a medium to enact popular goals. Jillian York talks about how internet connectivity is a major force for public activism, agreeing with blogger Andrew Trench’s estimate that if the 2011 struggles in “Egypt and Tunisia are valid case studies, it looks like internet penetration of around 20%” is the threshold for effective mobilization of ground-level activism.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>

When we interact in a physical environment our conversations are private by default until we go out of our way to make it very public <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Also, online privacy is public by default and private through effort <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. So by letting your informaiton be known by other indiviuals that is when you have allowed your private information to become public.

Privacy isn't about restricting access to information, it's about having that moment of control and agency <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Agency should not be taken away, because then people can't achieve privacy. Whatever people feel that needs to be priavte and kept to themselves is that shjould be private and confinded to them.

Danah Boyd asked, “How do you protect privacy?” <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref> Public internet is one of the main catalysts in the advancement of the technological era. The internet is the foundation of so many new age markets that its existences are vital. But in saying that nothing on the internet is 100% secure. There are so many potential hazardous users that even those things intended for privacy can be accessed. The right training in the wrong hands could decode any encryption. The YouTube video made the connection that privacy has this individual centric nature and stated, “sharing to be seen but trying to protect themselves to not be seen by certain people” relating to the regulation of the individuals of children. I would make the argument there is no such thing as private internet, the term is a paradox in itself which is globally interconnected can’t be private.

Privacy is the act of controlling what you do or say to others rather than the restriction of information from others. We control how private we want to be by not putting those images you wanted to put up on Facebook <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. The internet has become to public and needs to find some sense of privacy. Users of the internet decide to make whatever they place on the internet public for anyone to see <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Privacy today, and privacy 10 years ago has changed in the sense that you can go online and figure out how to hack into someones computer and find their information thanks to the help of the internet.

Many people take the argument that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," which is a common argument in favor of a lack of privacy when it comes to matters of security. However, debate surrounding less devistating or incriminating evidence is much more heated. Privacy encompasses many ideas and it is therefore rather a combination of acts rather than one. The nothing to hide argument however is based on an underlying premise that assumes that what one wants to hide is bad, which is not always the case. In any ineraction it is impossible to keep things completely private, especially once global media is encorporated. <ref>http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/</ref>

Meanwhile, digital access is the internet, the computer, and mobile access <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>.

Next, there are millions of individuals making their own videos for web distribution <ref>Day 25</ref>. These are created at every level of production quality, from shaky camera-phone footage to sophisticated animation <ref>Day 25</ref>. Any indiviual these days can post a video of anything whether their intention is to help or harm you.Being able to block, or track indiviuals who post violent or harmful videos will help people who have been harmed by the hateful video post.

Also, sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet are used to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity <ref>http://personas.media.mit.edu/</ref>.

Meanwhile, our digital identities are entities that need to be managed, so what appears online tends to be a highly sanitized version of us <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>. Danah Boyle talks about the issue of digital identity <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>; she says: “in any given situation, an individual presents a face, which is the social presentation of one facet of their identity."

Moreover, a digital identity is created through the use of various social media outlets, the most popular being Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. One can also create a digital identity linked to their name if they comment or subscribe to a forum. According to an article by Naumi Haque, a great deal of contrast often exists between our real personalities and our digital identities. Since this is almost always the case, is our so-called digital identity really an identity, or is it more of a digital fingerprint of our true identity? Haque thinks that for now at least the fingerprint metaphor is probably more accurate; but as technology increases, he sees a day when even things we don't know about ourselves will be obvious to our digital selves.<ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

The reason being we're constantly being monitored; our online social presence is constantly being reviewed by supervisors and hiring managers along with the rest of the general public. Therefore, people are advised to not share the same information online that they would in an intimate setting with friends and family.If people know, and feel that they are being monitored that prevents them from trying to do any wrond doing which could harm any indiviuals.

Your digital identity is created online by what you do, or say, online for others to see. So by putting yourself out there for the world to see is like opening the door for people to acess everthing about you. Johari Window created a 2x2 matrix to explain what information is known about you to you and/or others. The Arena describes the information that you and others know about each other while the Unknown describes the information that you and others do not know about you on the internet. There is also the facade, which describes the information that you know but do not what to share with others, while the Blind Spot explains information that you don't know about your own digital identity which others know <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>.

Online identity is a rhetorical term itself because to be online means to be recognized by and connected to a server. Hence, for in order to be recognized one is also synonymously identified. Once one ventures on the internet on immediately gains as online identity. Now what create the difference in the types of identities are its usage purposes. The internet is by design, a communication interface where one is giving or exchanging information. The giving and receiving of information can also be considered rhetorical because no answer is required.

Every individual who uses the internet has an online identity. Whether that said individual uses the internet to post on social networking sites, search topics of interest, or to read the news; all of the information that they associate with contributes to their identity. Sometimes, individuals use means within their reach to create a false identity, i.e. setting up a fake account. More often however, individuals er on the side of caution and tend to form their identity in the best light possible. They do this by overestimating their achievements and underestimating their failures. The perception of themselves that is shared with others online is fragmented, meaning that it is missing sometimes often critical components of who a person is or what they believe. Even before social networking took over the internet, indivdiuals presented only materials that they knew about themselves and were willing to share with the general public. In that respect, not much has changed. Except that now indivdiuals should be more aware of the material that they contribute to online, since it is more difficult to erase. <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

=== Community ===

According to Warner, "a public is a social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse"(90). "No single text can create a public. Nor can a single voice, a single genre, even a single medium. All are insufficient to create the kind of reflexivity that we call a public, since a public is understood to be an ongoing space of encounter for discourse" <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>. In other words, a public is a space where people can come together for discourse. In the case of satire, writers come together to produce something that is subversive but still humorous. Philosopher Benjamin Barber had a different view when defining the public. Barber saw the public as a people coming together because of their shared discourse, not to create/collaborate <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

Publics tend to mobolize others to action because writing, speaking, blogging requires indvidiuals to engage in a much larger network. The idea of a public tends to put pressure on a writer, by suggesting that his argument must be framed for a particular audience who have similar or dissimmilar viewpoints; this is dependent upon the goal of the written work. Social constraints also act to play a role in determining the dynamic between the public. Exploring mutuality may create a sense of "we" but also has the danger to create an "us" against "them mentality". <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

According to Fraser a singular public sphere can never adequately represent all factions within a stratified society, meaning that it has always been essential for subaltern groups to form their own counterpublic spheres <ref>Day 132</ref>. She stresses that these smaller publics are not inevitably about separatism; rather, they function as "bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics" <ref>Day 132</ref>.

Counterpublics exist to combat another public. Day uses Michael Warner's definition: [counterpublics are] "those publics constituted through a conflictual relation to the dominant, . . . [and] somehow subordinate to the prevailing culture."<ref>Day 132</ref> An interesting and important qualification, however, is that counterpublics need not necessarily consist of "otherwise marginalized individuals," since the ''issue'', and not the ''person'', is subordinate to the larger public.<ref>Day 132</ref>

A "public" is a group a people that share similar ideas and form a group to convey their ideas to the world. Counterpublics are publics formed to disband or argue against a certain public formed on an idea that the counterpublic does not agree with. Because of the scenario in which a counterpublic is formed, counterpublics cannot be of existence if its adverse public does not exist<ref>week4</ref>.

The meaning behind "The Public" is to be part of a group that is most comfortable speaking directly and for whom the ideal realtionship among is one of efficiency. Another model for a ''public'' focuses on the more traditional medium of ''writing'', as Phyllis Ryder says in her article: "As David Bartholomae and Joseph Harris have long argued that academics are inherently intertextual creatures, so Warner argues that the publics, too, are constituted by the circulation of texts."<ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

With rhetorical commnity it is seen as any group involved in using language to persuade or convince. Such as lawmakers, politcians, stockbrokers, etc. they could be thought as separate communities within society that skilled in using rhetoric<ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_rhetorical_community</ref>.

rhetorical communities are not a single unified whole but a mix of numerous limited or local communities and of individuals who typically participate in not one but several of these communities.</ref>http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Publications/Texts/rhetoric.html [[fix this citation]]

A rhetorical community builds the creation of public interest, common goods, and active citizens <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

A public is a group of people that perform in a similar way. It is a group of people that have similar ideas or goals <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

According to Simon Clark, the best way to create a community is to bond people together by means of a special event or a shared interest (i.e. movie night in your local neighborhood). The importance of creating a community is to not be discouraged by a lack of commitment on the part of others. Stepping out of your comfort zone will allow you to meet people who share the same ideas and goals as you. The point of a community is to bring together people with a common knowledge in which they can share and express their interests among those who they are well acquainted with. <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

Moreover, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. This can be an online peer group <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Also, an insert needs to be set up, and everyone in the neighborhood needs to sign up <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>.

Richard Millington states that in order to create a good community online you need four steps. The First is to find a metric to measure the success of the community. The second step is to Identify who your first members will be, while doing so you should establish what issues will be discussed and what source of technology will be used and how. After that identifying what type of online community it is and what the big appeal is will be essential to making the community work. Last but not least after all these steps are covered the final step is to launch the community and to devise strategies in order to keep growing. <ref>http://www.feverbee.com/2008/12/how-do-you-build-an-online-community.html</ref>. Being able to follow these steps, while grow a positive and uplifting community will benefit your community in many ways.

Meanwhile, the enabling technologies are based on the internet <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Finally, the web has changed communities."Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through AdSense" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "eBay solved the prisoner's dilemma" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia with a million and a half articles in two hundred languages" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

The web has allowed the communication between the people inside the communities to live a safer life in the sense that it allows those people to keep contact with one another if there might an issue or problem in their community. Such as twitter, facebook, and etc allows parents and kids stay involved with what might be going on in their very own back yards. Having twitter and facebook allows communities to be formed in a online perpective. Having eye and ears in the streets, and communicating online allows people to keep their homes safe.

Howard Rheingold emphasizes the world of collaboration, collaborative life. Simon Clark states, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Both Rheingold and Clarks information connect; the world of collaboration means a group of people are involved in something. Clark covered that a movie night would be an eventful night for a community of people (pick a night and make sure everyone knows about it). This illustrates the power of collaboration made possible through digital media. Rheingold talked about (in 2005) a coming world of “collaboration, participatory media, and collective action,” and certainly Wikipedia has achieved his model on a global level. He observed that every computer is a printing press, a broadcast booth, and a marketplace. The infrastructure is there, he argued, thus he urged communities to “get the cooperation project started.”<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>

An overview/recap of all the videos:[[all what videos?]] Howard Rheingold talks about “Wikipedia and how it affects the natural instinct of the human people” <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. . Wikipedia is not there to compete but for people to come together to work on a common project. Craig Newmark says relates a community with transparency and accountability, people need to be able to see what/why your doing it and be accountable for it. Simon Clark states “you need to come together, with a common and shared experience comes a healthy community” <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. The idea that it is possible to create a community even though there is still a lack of transparency or collaboration but at the same time we could still bring those together and build a community.

Clark's vision shows collaboration and partnership not limited to the digital sphere, as he demonstrates by his organizing of weekly, casual cookouts in his small neighborhood. He reminds us that traditional reality should not be overlooked in lieu of modern cyberspace. As the world moves further and further toward digital communities, it is helpful to remember that we ourselves are physical beings living in physical space, that communities need not be digital to be relevant.<ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

When it comes to personal identity, is there really a real you? This idea of personal identity is closely tied to communities; your actions of personal identity will affect the community. The connection between community and satire can be knowing the audience and as well as the responses. Can satire provide transparency, accountability, or a shared experience? Publics are by a common text, not just a word document or book but an experience. Collaboration, shared experience, transparency or accountability is ways we can try to create communities.

Communities form through four ideas; collaboration, shared experience, transparency, and accountability. People need to have a shared representation of what their community stands for while everyone included in the community needs to know what is going on in their community and account for what the community is doing as a whole <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Community specific irony can function in an elitest manner. This creates a form of competency and knowledge that goes hand in hand with economic competency. While online communities have learned much from education and exposure they also acknoweldge that in becoming so, online communities trade a form of distinction for a more public and general coomunity. Developments in technology have made it easier to pick up and take apart media around us, individuals have a new forum upon which hey can enter into public discussion, free from mainstream media. These new technologies link average citizens, professionals, and activists to exchange in discourse that may have not been available in any other form. <ref> Day, 40-42 </ref>

=== Institutions ===

"The remix becomes an act of social creativity."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "It potentially changes the way we relate to each other."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "All of our normal social interactions become an invitation to collective expression."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> It's our real social lives that are transformed into art.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

The remix refers to individuals who use shared culture as a kind of language to communicate something to an audience. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Also, the social remix is used to mediate people's relationships with each other.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Lawrence Lessig shows how Republicans have been more open to creative sharing than Democrats, owing he argues to Republicans' shared ideology that separates out the creative potential of the individual from the collective corporatist structure, thus having more of a respect for creators' rights to ''remix'' a copyrighted endeavor for the collective good.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

A remix can be used in satire to more accurately "mock" an idea or subject that the satire is trying to explain. A remix is modified versions of an earlier idea<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>. The term remix is used when a creator uses what the past creators has provided to create new, innovative ideas<ref>http://www.ehow.com/about_6534470_remix-vs_-plagiarism-films.html</ref>. The satire in remixing always seemed to be funny a good example is the clip of our former president George W.Bush<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEbZqvMu2cQ&feature=related</ref>.

Coorination costs are the financial difficulties in arranging group output. if you want to coordinate the work of people you create an institution which brings resources together and coordinate the activity of the groups. Cooperation needs to be put into the infastructure without regard to institutional models. There are a large number of people on the internet, but not everyone has what you need to create an infastructure. You need to draw them in to create a way to make an institution to meet a certain goal. This creates a need for management and structure (economic, physical, legal), as well as breaking down exlcusionary matters. Essentially, in creating cooperation into infastructure to create institutions, closed groups and companies will give way to looser networks where small contributors have big roles and fluid cooperation replaces rigid planning. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref>

According to Howard Rheingold, we live a collaborative life. For Example: Wikipedia is a natural instinct of people working as a group. Wikipedia is not there to compete but people coming together to work on a common project. The print press came along within decades and millions of people became literate, new forms of collective actions emerged within the spheres of knowledge, religion, politics, and wealth.

Publics and counterpublics, mentioned above, are fast becoming institutions in and of themselves. Seth Godwin argues that the old ideas of ''tribalism'' have reemerged during the digital era, resulting in more diversity of thought and action than what was assumed would be the case with our modern hyper-connectivity. Now, fringe individuals who were before powerless to advance their ideas, can join with like minds through a variety of social networking options thus leveraging their effectiveness in the marketplace of ideas. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead.html</ref>

=== Audience ===

A rhetorical situation can act as as a natural context of persons, events, objects, and relations which strongly invites utterance. This therefore occurs naturally in the rhetorical situation, and is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity. This helps to define rhetorical character of which the three requirements of audience, constraints, and exigence are necessarily important for rhetorical discourse. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

The audience has the ability to set the discourse, to focus on cues from the writer. Therefore, the audience has assumed power in that it is regarded as having attitudes, beliefs, and expectations that are known to the writer. Even though writers feel that they can never truly know their audience but can invoke emotion from them, or create an image for themlittle guidence when it comes to his readers.Not knowing your audience is a common struggle for writers, but being able to create the same image that you see when ou write make it easier.However, this model seems to put more emphasis on the writer than on the discourse or the dynamic between the writer and audience that acts to facilitate a rhetorical situation. The appropriate rhetorical situation has a balance of creativity from the writer and the creativity of the reader. By understanding the needs of an audience, and whether that audience is addressed (assumed) or invoked (imagined), a communicator has a better chance of reaching that audience.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

An audience is (universal/particular -- those capable of being influenced and those capable of influencing) <ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref> Lloyd F. Bitzer defines ''rhetorical situation'' as "a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance."<ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Thus defined, since such a confluence of parts is naturally changing, an effective speaker should recognize and adapt to these changes in order to effectively reach that audience.

An audience is the group of people that a rhetorical writer and/or speaker is trying to persuade into the beliefs of what that rhetoric writer wants to the audience to realize<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> Even though the writer has no control over who reads what pieces of literature, the writer atleast tries to lead certain readers to his or her works.

"There are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience."<ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref>
Discourse is Situated: 1) For audience, possibly pairing with content course 2) against hypothetical or physical audience and instead focuses on "cues" that writers use.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> But Ede and Lunsford state that this oversimplifies the complexities of audience in the rhetorical situation. <ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

There is an indefinite amount of information for the rhetor to choose from in a situation. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Meaning that the rhetor can select the information he or she feels is relevant to the argument they are making in their satire. This view is opposite of Lloyd F. Bitzer's, who defines a rhetorical situation as "natural and objective." <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> However, if rhetorical situations were objective, then there would not be much room for discourse let alone satire. Richard E. Vatz makes the same argument against Bitzer in the following article. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

Fears about privacy come with new technology. We have new tools that enable us to do so much. If all we do is pay attention to is privacy, we loose publicness. You can get great benefit from sharing. Others may similarly benefit from what you have to contribute. Often it can be seen as selfish to hold back. In addressing policy, it is critical to understand your risks and goals when assessing how much information to share with the public. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

We may look more deeply into our audience in building our message. As Vatz makes the point, How the rhetor interprets events plays a huge part in creating meaning, and doesn’t create a set rhetorical response to an exigence; thus, Vatz feels he is putting more responsibility on the rhetor: “the rhetor is responsible for what he [sic] chooses to make salient” (168).

Class Debate: Satire is serious. It informs people who are apathetic by entertainment. Satirical news can be more entertaining than the regular news. Satire is arguably better than the regular news because it is straight forward with no intentions of hurting feelings and not being afraid of peoples’ reactions. These commentators make it so that one can understand the issue at hand. The introduction of satire is so attention grabbing it gets you into the news. Satire still gets the current event point across while showing flaws in people/groups. This news brings in a different audience, young ones who do not watch the news. Satire is still funny but at the same time plays a serious role.

== Tribes and Attention ==

"Publicness" is about organizing movements or clubs. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

If all we do is pay attention to privacy, then we may lose the opportunities and benefits of publicness. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html</ref>

== Satire and Tradition ==

Video and digital technologies make it relatively easy and inexpensive for the staff of ''The Daily Show'', to obtain and edit the day's newsclips.<ref>Day 54</ref> And, as John Caldwell points out, "By 2000, widespread use of digital servers (allowing random and multiple access to image and sound) made the task of finding and incorporating archived file footage far less daunting." <ref>Day 54</ref>

Online satire have a more developed incorporation of the real into the mimetic. The form has moved and increasingly blurred the line between news and entertainment, satirizing real news footage as it unfolds and ambushing and interviewing real political leaders. This has only led to the popularity of video and digital satire. <ref> Day, 57 </ref>

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. Lawrence Lessig talks about taking songs and remixing them to make something different <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref>.

Fair use is the right, in some circumstances, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying for it. Fair use enables the creation of new culture, and keeps current copyright holders from being private censors <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

=== Open Source ===

The public domain is the commons of information where nothing is owned and all is permitted <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>.

The acronym "API" stands for Application Programming Interface <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire is an open source application.

Essentially, an open API is something that can be modified<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire uses other ideas and "modifies" them, so the API for satire would be the "program" that satire is using to create its own idea of the same program. ''Open source satire'' relies on the creative works of others in remixing the work to convert it to satire. An example would be when a satirist takes a real news story and converts it to satire. This act of modifying an original source is legally predicated on the original source being ''open source'', or, in other words, not protected by copyright.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>

Because of the open source model which has encouraged the creativity in software since it allows others to modify its function with a potential for unlimited improvement. Mozilla Firefox internet browser is an example of open source software, and the marketplace ultimately determines if the product is successful. Open API, on the other hand, is only open in the sense that others can view the source programming: Twitter and Facebook work like this, where the source code is used to coordinate with other websites and applications. An important distinction between Open Source and Open API is that the former allows users to modify the source code itself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref> Because of "open source" which allows one to make changes it is sometimes seen as more easier to deal with and handle the API where you can only see but there can not be any changes made.

The Creative Commons is kind of like open source and having an API.

''Remixing'' recreates, using digital technologies, existing content into something new that is then added to our culture.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref> The remixed creation relies on existing content being available to the remixers. Fair Use statutes govern this process, thereby either encouraging or stifling this creative process. Many believe existing copyright law does not adequately address the best model for an increasingly digitalized 21st century and that change is needed in the form of new law. Others, like Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, believe existing copyright and fair use law have been misinterpreted and misappropriated to serve only large commercial interests. Their book ''Reclaiming Fair Use'' argues that "fair use" is often misunderstood; they challenge the "widely held notion that current copyright law has become unworkable and obsolete in the era of digital technologies," thereby hoping to "reshape the debate in both scholarly circles and the creative community." <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/reclaiming</ref>

You cannot transmit what you know under a certain set of circumstances. The effect includes open source software, critical in web based communications. Most intellect is produced in this form to capture a component of the net. Software has done this in a way that is very visible because it is measurable. NASA did an experiment where they took images of Mars, and instead of having multiple Ph.d.s working all the time, they put images on the web. Now many people use it to map, which is indestinguishable from those made by individuals with a P.h.d.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html</ref>

A remix is a creation of an idea that bases its own idea from a source from past ideas. Remixing can be dangerous if the creator of the remix does not follow the copyright laws that are put in place to protect an individuals idea from being copied<ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

Remix culture is a term used to describe a society which allows and encourages derivative works. Remix is defined as combining or editing existing materials to produce a new product. A Remix Culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the work of copyright holders. <ref>http://www.everythingisaremix.info/</ref>

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. In a new media context, a remix is the combination of two different pieces of media to form a new piece of media. For example, a voiceover and Hollywood movie can be remixed together to form a new video. Remix works best when the source materials are totally different from each other, like Romantic Comedies vs. Biblical Dramas, or when they comment on or critique the other. <ref>http://popculturepirate.com/2011/09/23/what-is-a-remix-exactly/</ref>

=== Memes ===

A meme is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." <ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme</ref>. The word "meme" is derived from the greek word "mimeme" which means "something imitated" and was coined for its modern definition by British biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 for his idea on evolutionary processes for explaining how ideas and culture spread as a natural process of communicating <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=YphlBwpbJCUC&pg=PA16</ref>. The theory of evolution applied to memes as noted by Dawkins says that memes either evolve and adapt with their shared meaning or they die out and become extinct. We can see this in our modern use of memes as they come and go.

A meme typically raises questions of justice and fairness and is built by remixing an existing idea. In visual form, the existing idea often represents a public while the meme represents a counterpublic. Memes sometimes, however, function only to relay humor as in the case of “Success Kid,” <ref>http://memegenerator.net/Success-Kid</ref> who argues ''anything'' or ''nothing'' depending on the user added content superimposed onto his fabric. Humor-only memes are little more than a condensed joke, but social-activist memes can be powerful agents of change. Additionally, a broader movement like Occupy Wall Street <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref> can also be considered a meme when this visual fabric idea is extrapolated to represent specific ideas superimposed upon broader ones. OWS demonstrations vary widely on the specific minor goal, vehicle, or agency, but the underlying fabric (the meme fabric) is the broader idea that 99% of citizens should have more influence than the 1% who currently control American government. As long as the specific goal is in concert with the broader one, the OWS movement has unity in direction. In this way, OWS can be compared to general “Success Kid” who is set by users into a variety of specific contexts. By contrast, the visual framework of “Success Kid” is more discrete in this application and generally represents what most consider being a ''meme''.

Occupy Wall Street was, essentially, a type of meme. Memes are expressions used to portray an idea or belief to prove a point. In the Occupy Wall Street, people were expressing their ideas to help prove a point to what they were demanding <ref>Week 5</ref>. Even though sometimes the point that you are trying to get across is not seen, meme leave powerful statements.

The Arab Spring brought down cruel dictatorships and brought in freedom, democracy and change from existing political and economic systems <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref>.

Susan Blackmore argues that humanity has spawned a new kind of meme. She says the new form of meme is spread by the technology that we've created <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>.

What makes a meme is not specifically the picture or idea that is repeatedly used, but the variety of ways that the same picture or idea is manipulated to express ideas of the certain creator<ref>http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/how-to-explain-what-a-meme-is-in-one-image</ref> The way that meme is expressed by different people is unique, and can different in the way that meme can never be seen as dull but rather spontaneous.

Phil T. Rich argues that "memes are media viruses that spread throughout the population. Urban legends, fleeting fashions, and idiotic ad slogans that work their way into everyday conversations are memes <ref>Day 165</ref>. Moreover, memes can be used as a culture of resistance" <ref>Day 166</ref>

Meme have allowed people to express themselves, and their viewpoint in ways that usually they could not. With meme people with have that tool to express their thoughts and ideas to the world.

Susan Blackmore describes how ''mimetics'' (the working of memes) operates like a virus or a progression of an idea after the Darwinian evolutionary model, where design comes forth out of chaos. "Going viral" happens when an idea spreads like a virus, mutating as it goes. Certain viruses are clearly more contagious than others, and the marketplace of ideas dictates a particular idea's status in the digital world. The digital public decides what goes viral by their decision whether to forward an idea, meme, or viral concept. She coins the term ''teme'' as being a technologically themed meme. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>

An interesting concept called ''countermeme'' was illustrated by Mike Godwin who postulated that the longer an internet discussion continues, the probability that someone mentions ''Hitler'' or ''Nazi'', etc., moves closer to 1. Subsequent citing of "Godwin's Law" to combat this argumentative tactic has found its way into a surprising number of discussion threads on various topics, effectively becoming a countermeme.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html</ref>

Satire is used to go against power and oppression. [[??]]

Satire is verbal aggression of some aspect being exposed to ridicule. [[??]]

=References=
<references/>

Digital Satire

2012-07-30T17:34:43Z

Jeff: /* Communities of Satire */ fixed headings

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion consisting of various methods used in attempting to persuade an audience.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric</ref> A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref> Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively. It is essential to understand how to use logos, pathos, and ethos in order to effectively persuade your audience. There are five cannons of rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Using the five canons of rhetoric you can build an effective argument.

Rhetoric aims to improve speech skills by improving the way a speaker of a specialized audience speaks to his or her audience<ref>day1</ref>.

=== Satire ===

Satire being a more literary genre which is seen to use more of a sense of criticism towards a specific person or group<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms.

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant" (Frye) - but parody, and burlesque are frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satire is used to make a mockery of an individual or group that has failed to act as the followers of the individual or group wanted them to. Satire is usually applied to a subject where the failed individual or group has failed in<ref>day1</ref>.

Satirical works often contain "straight" humour. Laughter is not an essential component of satire,(Corum 175)[[fix this citation]] as in spectrum of satire there are types that are not meant to arise laughter and be "funny".

Conversely, not all humour is necessarily "satirical", even on such topics as politics, religion or art, or even when it uses the satirical tools of irony, parody, and burlesque <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satirical playwright Dario Fo pointed out the difference between satire and teasing. Teasing is the reactionary side of the comic, it limits itself to a shallow parody of physical appearance. Satire instead uses the comic to go against power and its oppressions, has a subversive character, and a moral dimension which draws judgement against its targets <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Teasing is an ancient form of simple buffoonery, a form of comedy without satire's subversive edge. Teasing includes light and affectionate parody, good-humoured mockery, simple one-dimensional poking fun, benign spoofs. Teasing typically consists in a impersonation of someone monkeying around with his exterior attributes, tics, physical blemishes, voice and mannerisms, quirks, way of dressing and walking, the phrases he typically repeats. By contrast, teasing never touches on the core issue, never makes a serious criticism judging the target with irony; it never harms the target's conduct, ideology and position of power; it never undermines the perception of his morality and cultural dimension <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Critics tend to see irony, parody, and satire as diminishing meaning (by belittling the subject), but as Harold Bloom reminds us, the great ironists such as Shakespeare tended to expand meaning (13)[[fix this citation]]. Satire is provocative, not dismissive - a crucial point that critics typically ignore when assessing its role in public discourse <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>.

Test argues that play and laughter constitute and define all satiric undertakings and distinguish it from other forms of aesthetic expression with which it is sometimes confused with "humor, comedy, social criticism, parody, burlesque, farce and travesty"(13)[[fix this citation]].

Again, there has been some controversy over whether laughter is a necessary component or distinguishing feature of satire. Laughter is ultimately something satire may or may not produce within the audience. It is not something that resides in the artistic expression itself. Satire does not need to be funny. <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions <ref>http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/E/enthymeme.htm</ref>.The meaning of enthymemes has to do with an unanswered statement which is made by a person, which allows someone to find the conclusion of the statement on their own by being able to understand the statement <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme</ref>. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. A skillful use of satire can engage the audience in a more constructive way by appealing to its imagination as well as engaging the intellect <ref> http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0</ref>Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is looked to, for its ability to unmask and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy <Ref>Day 12</Ref>.The image of physically unveiling something or someone is one that recurs again and again in discussions of satire<Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.12</ref>. Also, satire has been feared and banned because it is seen as a powerful force (Feinberg)<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf</ref>[[fix this citation]]. I would even argue that contemporary, mediatized political satire is being mobilized in a fairly populist register, as seemingly average Joes attempt to take down the mighty <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.9</ref>.
Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of Jon Stewart <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE</ref> and Stephen Colbert <ref>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879</ref>, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

According to Hutcheon <ref>Day 12</ref> a more idealistic view holds that satire and irony have "the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very 'sites' of discourse." Also, Lillian and Edward Bloom go on to explain, that satire ultimately has little political effect because it does not in itself initiate change and, in fact, rarely encourages it <ref>Day 12</ref>.

Satire can play a big role in public debate. There are bloggers that post ideas anonymously on the internet, and there are people that challenge those in power <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.
Also, certain tools lend themselves more fully to digital satire to give back to society. The internet is a good tool based on the fact that anyone can use it <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011), pp. 11-13.</Ref>. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" <Ref>Day 21</Ref>. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.
3.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

Having the identity as being "anonymous" is seen for people who want to keep their information that they post private, or they could be scared about the backlash of any comments that might be made.But for you to create an identity online you might create a blog, or twitter, or have facebook to have yoourself know for the digital world.

For satire to be effective, it must be sincere at the core, it must allow others to build an understanding between the idea of satire and its viewpoint.Day argues that ''ironic authenticity'' is to satire what ''credibility'' is to traditional argumentation. Just because satire is comedic does not mean it is not at the same time serious; and since satire is becoming increasingly popular, she asserts, "for many, irony is becoming a new marker of sincerity."<ref>Day 42</ref>

Digital Satire allows collaboration through social networks, with the result being potentially better than a smaller team. This vastly more unlimited vehicle takes advantage of more creative talents at work on a project, and at the same time overthrows the need for an institutionalized structure traditionally required for such collaboration, as Clay Shirky points out."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref> Digital satire created in this way becomes the product of a group effort that potentially maximizes its value in the social marketplace of ideas. The value of Digital Satire will allow certain product in the digital world to made an impact to the world.

Satire puts more action rather than factual information to the news. The news is used to give factual information and NOT persuade anyone with the information given while digital satire uses the news and rhetoric techniques to influence and persuade its audience of a factual information being , blatantly put, "stupid<ref>day4week4</ref>." The goal of the daily news is to give you what has been informed to a certain indiviual from other indiviual who ahs collected all this data. Where as digital satire takes what has been reported and puts a new twist to things and makes you see it in different ways rather then so narrow minded.

When satire derives from news which is originally or secondarily hosted online, they involve far fewer impersonations, sketches based around politician's personal foibles, and entirely made-up news items. Instead, they rely heavily on deconstructions of real news events, as well as interviews or ambushes of actual public figures, blending the mimetic and the real. They tread a much finer line between news and entertainmen, satire and political argument. This has thrust these programs into serious public debate and creating much cultural anxiety. <ref>Day, 43</ref>

Digital satire uses social media to express opinions and information in a satirical way. It uses more action to express information rather than just facts as the news would do which can potentially bring more attention to the topic at hand, bringing more audience to its news.

Satire has not just perpective to it, rather it has many different ones, but the goal of satire is to get your point or messgae across, and do it in a sarcastic, and humorous way.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity vs. Privacy ===

Danah Boyd looks at the changing faces of “Networked Privacy,” asserting that U.S. privacy laws of the 1970s are not applicable in 2010 and furthermore that there is no current agreement on “what privacy is, or what it means to actually protect it in the first place.” She points to a mother who created a public webpage of her family’s genealogy that included maiden names, the most common internet security question, as an example of the conflict between the desire for social connectedness and privacy.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>

Some argue that the internet’s public nature must be preserved if it is to act as a medium to enact popular goals. Jillian York talks about how internet connectivity is a major force for public activism, agreeing with blogger Andrew Trench’s estimate that if the 2011 struggles in “Egypt and Tunisia are valid case studies, it looks like internet penetration of around 20%” is the threshold for effective mobilization of ground-level activism.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>

When we interact in a physical environment our conversations are private by default until we go out of our way to make it very public <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Also, online privacy is public by default and private through effort <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. So by letting your informaiton be known by other indiviuals that is when you have allowed your private information to become public.

Privacy isn't about restricting access to information, it's about having that moment of control and agency <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Agency should not be taken away, because then people can't achieve privacy. Whatever people feel that needs to be priavte and kept to themselves is that shjould be private and confinded to them.

Danah Boyd asked, “How do you protect privacy?” <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref> Public internet is one of the main catalysts in the advancement of the technological era. The internet is the foundation of so many new age markets that its existences are vital. But in saying that nothing on the internet is 100% secure. There are so many potential hazardous users that even those things intended for privacy can be accessed. The right training in the wrong hands could decode any encryption. The YouTube video made the connection that privacy has this individual centric nature and stated, “sharing to be seen but trying to protect themselves to not be seen by certain people” relating to the regulation of the individuals of children. I would make the argument there is no such thing as private internet, the term is a paradox in itself which is globally interconnected can’t be private.

Privacy is the act of controlling what you do or say to others rather than the restriction of information from others. We control how private we want to be by not putting those images you wanted to put up on Facebook <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. The internet has become to public and needs to find some sense of privacy. Users of the internet decide to make whatever they place on the internet public for anyone to see <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Privacy today, and privacy 10 years ago has changed in the sense that you can go online and figure out how to hack into someones computer and find their information thanks to the help of the internet.

Many people take the argument that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," which is a common argument in favor of a lack of privacy when it comes to matters of security. However, debate surrounding less devistating or incriminating evidence is much more heated. Privacy encompasses many ideas and it is therefore rather a combination of acts rather than one. The nothing to hide argument however is based on an underlying premise that assumes that what one wants to hide is bad, which is not always the case. In any ineraction it is impossible to keep things completely private, especially once global media is encorporated. <ref>http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/</ref>

Meanwhile, digital access is the internet, the computer, and mobile access <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>.

Next, there are millions of individuals making their own videos for web distribution <ref>Day 25</ref>. These are created at every level of production quality, from shaky camera-phone footage to sophisticated animation <ref>Day 25</ref>. Any indiviual these days can post a video of anything whether their intention is to help or harm you.Being able to block, or track indiviuals who post violent or harmful videos will help people who have been harmed by the hateful video post.

Also, sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet are used to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity <ref>http://personas.media.mit.edu/</ref>.

Meanwhile, our digital identities are entities that need to be managed, so what appears online tends to be a highly sanitized version of us <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>. Danah Boyle talks about the issue of digital identity <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>; she says: “in any given situation, an individual presents a face, which is the social presentation of one facet of their identity."

Moreover, a digital identity is created through the use of various social media outlets, the most popular being Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. One can also create a digital identity linked to their name if they comment or subscribe to a forum. According to an article by Naumi Haque, a great deal of contrast often exists between our real personalities and our digital identities. Since this is almost always the case, is our so-called digital identity really an identity, or is it more of a digital fingerprint of our true identity? Haque thinks that for now at least the fingerprint metaphor is probably more accurate; but as technology increases, he sees a day when even things we don't know about ourselves will be obvious to our digital selves.<ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

The reason being we're constantly being monitored; our online social presence is constantly being reviewed by supervisors and hiring managers along with the rest of the general public. Therefore, people are advised to not share the same information online that they would in an intimate setting with friends and family.If people know, and feel that they are being monitored that prevents them from trying to do any wrond doing which could harm any indiviuals.

Your digital identity is created online by what you do, or say, online for others to see. So by putting yourself out there for the world to see is like opening the door for people to acess everthing about you. Johari Window created a 2x2 matrix to explain what information is known about you to you and/or others. The Arena describes the information that you and others know about each other while the Unknown describes the information that you and others do not know about you on the internet. There is also the facade, which describes the information that you know but do not what to share with others, while the Blind Spot explains information that you don't know about your own digital identity which others know <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>.

Online identity is a rhetorical term itself because to be online means to be recognized by and connected to a server. Hence, for in order to be recognized one is also synonymously identified. Once one ventures on the internet on immediately gains as online identity. Now what create the difference in the types of identities are its usage purposes. The internet is by design, a communication interface where one is giving or exchanging information. The giving and receiving of information can also be considered rhetorical because no answer is required.

Every individual who uses the internet has an online identity. Whether that said individual uses the internet to post on social networking sites, search topics of interest, or to read the news; all of the information that they associate with contributes to their identity. Sometimes, individuals use means within their reach to create a false identity, i.e. setting up a fake account. More often however, individuals er on the side of caution and tend to form their identity in the best light possible. They do this by overestimating their achievements and underestimating their failures. The perception of themselves that is shared with others online is fragmented, meaning that it is missing sometimes often critical components of who a person is or what they believe. Even before social networking took over the internet, indivdiuals presented only materials that they knew about themselves and were willing to share with the general public. In that respect, not much has changed. Except that now indivdiuals should be more aware of the material that they contribute to online, since it is more difficult to erase. <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

=== Community ===

According to Warner, "a public is a social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse"(90). "No single text can create a public. Nor can a single voice, a single genre, even a single medium. All are insufficient to create the kind of reflexivity that we call a public, since a public is understood to be an ongoing space of encounter for discourse" <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>. In other words, a public is a space where people can come together for discourse. In the case of satire, writers come together to produce something that is subversive but still humorous. Philosopher Benjamin Barber had a different view when defining the public. Barber saw the public as a people coming together because of their shared discourse, not to create/collaborate <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

Publics tend to mobolize others to action because writing, speaking, blogging requires indvidiuals to engage in a much larger network. The idea of a public tends to put pressure on a writer, by suggesting that his argument must be framed for a particular audience who have similar or dissimmilar viewpoints; this is dependent upon the goal of the written work. Social constraints also act to play a role in determining the dynamic between the public. Exploring mutuality may create a sense of "we" but also has the danger to create an "us" against "them mentality". <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

According to Fraser a singular public sphere can never adequately represent all factions within a stratified society, meaning that it has always been essential for subaltern groups to form their own counterpublic spheres <ref>Day 132</ref>. She stresses that these smaller publics are not inevitably about separatism; rather, they function as "bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics" <ref>Day 132</ref>.

Counterpublics exist to combat another public. Day uses Michael Warner's definition: [counterpublics are] "those publics constituted through a conflictual relation to the dominant, . . . [and] somehow subordinate to the prevailing culture."<ref>Day 132</ref> An interesting and important qualification, however, is that counterpublics need not necessarily consist of "otherwise marginalized individuals," since the ''issue'', and not the ''person'', is subordinate to the larger public.<ref>Day 132</ref>

A "public" is a group a people that share similar ideas and form a group to convey their ideas to the world. Counterpublics are publics formed to disband or argue against a certain public formed on an idea that the counterpublic does not agree with. Because of the scenario in which a counterpublic is formed, counterpublics cannot be of existence if its adverse public does not exist<ref>week4</ref>.

The meaning behind "The Public" is to be part of a group that is most comfortable speaking directly and for whom the ideal realtionship among is one of efficiency. Another model for a ''public'' focuses on the more traditional medium of ''writing'', as Phyllis Ryder says in her article: "As David Bartholomae and Joseph Harris have long argued that academics are inherently intertextual creatures, so Warner argues that the publics, too, are constituted by the circulation of texts."<ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

With rhetorical commnity it is seen as any group involved in using language to persuade or convince. Such as lawmakers, politcians, stockbrokers, etc. they could be thought as separate communities within society that skilled in using rhetoric<ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_rhetorical_community</ref>.

rhetorical communities are not a single unified whole but a mix of numerous limited or local communities and of individuals who typically participate in not one but several of these communities.</ref>http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Publications/Texts/rhetoric.html [[fix this citation]]

A rhetorical community builds the creation of public interest, common goods, and active citizens <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

A public is a group of people that perform in a similar way. It is a group of people that have similar ideas or goals <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

According to Simon Clark, the best way to create a community is to bond people together by means of a special event or a shared interest (i.e. movie night in your local neighborhood). The importance of creating a community is to not be discouraged by a lack of commitment on the part of others. Stepping out of your comfort zone will allow you to meet people who share the same ideas and goals as you. The point of a community is to bring together people with a common knowledge in which they can share and express their interests among those who they are well acquainted with. <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

Moreover, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. This can be an online peer group <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Also, an insert needs to be set up, and everyone in the neighborhood needs to sign up <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>.

Richard Millington states that in order to create a good community online you need four steps. The First is to find a metric to measure the success of the community. The second step is to Identify who your first members will be, while doing so you should establish what issues will be discussed and what source of technology will be used and how. After that identifying what type of online community it is and what the big appeal is will be essential to making the community work. Last but not least after all these steps are covered the final step is to launch the community and to devise strategies in order to keep growing. <ref>http://www.feverbee.com/2008/12/how-do-you-build-an-online-community.html</ref>. Being able to follow these steps, while grow a positive and uplifting community will benefit your community in many ways.

Meanwhile, the enabling technologies are based on the internet <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Finally, the web has changed communities."Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through AdSense" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "eBay solved the prisoner's dilemma" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia with a million and a half articles in two hundred languages" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

The web has allowed the communication between the people inside the communities to live a safer life in the sense that it allows those people to keep contact with one another if there might an issue or problem in their community. Such as twitter, facebook, and etc allows parents and kids stay involved with what might be going on in their very own back yards. Having twitter and facebook allows communities to be formed in a online perpective. Having eye and ears in the streets, and communicating online allows people to keep their homes safe.

Howard Rheingold emphasizes the world of collaboration, collaborative life. Simon Clark states, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Both Rheingold and Clarks information connect; the world of collaboration means a group of people are involved in something. Clark covered that a movie night would be an eventful night for a community of people (pick a night and make sure everyone knows about it). This illustrates the power of collaboration made possible through digital media. Rheingold talked about (in 2005) a coming world of “collaboration, participatory media, and collective action,” and certainly Wikipedia has achieved his model on a global level. He observed that every computer is a printing press, a broadcast booth, and a marketplace. The infrastructure is there, he argued, thus he urged communities to “get the cooperation project started.”<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>

An overview/recap of all the videos:[[all what videos?]] Howard Rheingold talks about “Wikipedia and how it affects the natural instinct of the human people” <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. . Wikipedia is not there to compete but for people to come together to work on a common project. Craig Newmark says relates a community with transparency and accountability, people need to be able to see what/why your doing it and be accountable for it. Simon Clark states “you need to come together, with a common and shared experience comes a healthy community” <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. The idea that it is possible to create a community even though there is still a lack of transparency or collaboration but at the same time we could still bring those together and build a community.

Clark's vision shows collaboration and partnership not limited to the digital sphere, as he demonstrates by his organizing of weekly, casual cookouts in his small neighborhood. He reminds us that traditional reality should not be overlooked in lieu of modern cyberspace. As the world moves further and further toward digital communities, it is helpful to remember that we ourselves are physical beings living in physical space, that communities need not be digital to be relevant.<ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

When it comes to personal identity, is there really a real you? This idea of personal identity is closely tied to communities; your actions of personal identity will affect the community. The connection between community and satire can be knowing the audience and as well as the responses. Can satire provide transparency, accountability, or a shared experience? Publics are by a common text, not just a word document or book but an experience. Collaboration, shared experience, transparency or accountability is ways we can try to create communities.

Communities form through four ideas; collaboration, shared experience, transparency, and accountability. People need to have a shared representation of what their community stands for while everyone included in the community needs to know what is going on in their community and account for what the community is doing as a whole <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Community specific irony can function in an elitest manner. This creates a form of competency and knowledge that goes hand in hand with economic competency. While online communities have learned much from education and exposure they also acknoweldge that in becoming so, online communities trade a form of distinction for a more public and general coomunity. Developments in technology have made it easier to pick up and take apart media around us, individuals have a new forum upon which hey can enter into public discussion, free from mainstream media. These new technologies link average citizens, professionals, and activists to exchange in discourse that may have not been available in any other form. <ref> Day, 40-42 </ref>

=== Institutions ===

"The remix becomes an act of social creativity."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "It potentially changes the way we relate to each other."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "All of our normal social interactions become an invitation to collective expression."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> It's our real social lives that are transformed into art.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

The remix refers to individuals who use shared culture as a kind of language to communicate something to an audience. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Also, the social remix is used to mediate people's relationships with each other.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Lawrence Lessig shows how Republicans have been more open to creative sharing than Democrats, owing he argues to Republicans' shared ideology that separates out the creative potential of the individual from the collective corporatist structure, thus having more of a respect for creators' rights to ''remix'' a copyrighted endeavor for the collective good.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

A remix can be used in satire to more accurately "mock" an idea or subject that the satire is trying to explain. A remix is modified versions of an earlier idea<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>. The term remix is used when a creator uses what the past creators has provided to create new, innovative ideas<ref>http://www.ehow.com/about_6534470_remix-vs_-plagiarism-films.html</ref>. The satire in remixing always seemed to be funny a good example is the clip of our former president George W.Bush<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEbZqvMu2cQ&feature=related</ref>.

Coorination costs are the financial difficulties in arranging group output. if you want to coordinate the work of people you create an institution which brings resources together and coordinate the activity of the groups. Cooperation needs to be put into the infastructure without regard to institutional models. There are a large number of people on the internet, but not everyone has what you need to create an infastructure. You need to draw them in to create a way to make an institution to meet a certain goal. This creates a need for management and structure (economic, physical, legal), as well as breaking down exlcusionary matters. Essentially, in creating cooperation into infastructure to create institutions, closed groups and companies will give way to looser networks where small contributors have big roles and fluid cooperation replaces rigid planning. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref>

According to Howard Rheingold, we live a collaborative life. For Example: Wikipedia is a natural instinct of people working as a group. Wikipedia is not there to compete but people coming together to work on a common project. The print press came along within decades and millions of people became literate, new forms of collective actions emerged within the spheres of knowledge, religion, politics, and wealth.

Publics and counterpublics, mentioned above, are fast becoming institutions in and of themselves. Seth Godwin argues that the old ideas of ''tribalism'' have reemerged during the digital era, resulting in more diversity of thought and action than what was assumed would be the case with our modern hyper-connectivity. Now, fringe individuals who were before powerless to advance their ideas, can join with like minds through a variety of social networking options thus leveraging their effectiveness in the marketplace of ideas. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead.html</ref>

=== Audience ===

A rhetorical situation can act as as a natural context of persons, events, objects, and relations which strongly invites utterance. This therefore occurs naturally in the rhetorical situation, and is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity. This helps to define rhetorical character of which the three requirements of audience, constraints, and exigence are necessarily important for rhetorical discourse. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

The audience has the ability to set the discourse, to focus on cues from the writer. Therefore, the audience has assumed power in that it is regarded as having attitudes, beliefs, and expectations that are known to the writer. Even though writers feel that they can never truly know their audience but can invoke emotion from them, or create an image for themlittle guidence when it comes to his readers.Not knowing your audience is a common struggle for writers, but being able to create the same image that you see when ou write make it easier.However, this model seems to put more emphasis on the writer than on the discourse or the dynamic between the writer and audience that acts to facilitate a rhetorical situation. The appropriate rhetorical situation has a balance of creativity from the writer and the creativity of the reader. By understanding the needs of an audience, and whether that audience is addressed (assumed) or invoked (imagined), a communicator has a better chance of reaching that audience.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

An audience is (universal/particular -- those capable of being influenced and those capable of influencing) <ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref> Lloyd F. Bitzer defines ''rhetorical situation'' as "a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance."<ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Thus defined, since such a confluence of parts is naturally changing, an effective speaker should recognize and adapt to these changes in order to effectively reach that audience.

An audience is the group of people that a rhetorical writer and/or speaker is trying to persuade into the beliefs of what that rhetoric writer wants to the audience to realize<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> Even though the writer has no control over who reads what pieces of literature, the writer atleast tries to lead certain readers to his or her works.

"There are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience."<ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref>
Discourse is Situated: 1) For audience, possibly pairing with content course 2) against hypothetical or physical audience and instead focuses on "cues" that writers use.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> But Ede and Lunsford state that this oversimplifies the complexities of audience in the rhetorical situation. <ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

There is an indefinite amount of information for the rhetor to choose from in a situation. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Meaning that the rhetor can select the information he or she feels is relevant to the argument they are making in their satire. This view is opposite of Lloyd F. Bitzer's, who defines a rhetorical situation as "natural and objective." <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> However, if rhetorical situations were objective, then there would not be much room for discourse let alone satire. Richard E. Vatz makes the same argument against Bitzer in the following article. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

Fears about privacy come with new technology. We have new tools that enable us to do so much. If all we do is pay attention to is privacy, we loose publicness. You can get great benefit from sharing. Others may similarly benefit from what you have to contribute. Often it can be seen as selfish to hold back. In addressing policy, it is critical to understand your risks and goals when assessing how much information to share with the public. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

We may look more deeply into our audience in building our message. As Vatz makes the point, How the rhetor interprets events plays a huge part in creating meaning, and doesn’t create a set rhetorical response to an exigence; thus, Vatz feels he is putting more responsibility on the rhetor: “the rhetor is responsible for what he [sic] chooses to make salient” (168).

Class Debate: Satire is serious. It informs people who are apathetic by entertainment. Satirical news can be more entertaining than the regular news. Satire is arguably better than the regular news because it is straight forward with no intentions of hurting feelings and not being afraid of peoples’ reactions. These commentators make it so that one can understand the issue at hand. The introduction of satire is so attention grabbing it gets you into the news. Satire still gets the current event point across while showing flaws in people/groups. This news brings in a different audience, young ones who do not watch the news. Satire is still funny but at the same time plays a serious role.

== Tribes and Attention ==

"Publicness" is about organizing movements or clubs. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

If all we do is pay attention to privacy, then we may lose the opportunities and benefits of publicness. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html</ref>

== Satire and Tradition ==

Video and digital technologies make it relatively easy and inexpensive for the staff of ''The Daily Show'', to obtain and edit the day's newsclips.<ref>Day 54</ref> And, as John Caldwell points out, "By 2000, widespread use of digital servers (allowing random and multiple access to image and sound) made the task of finding and incorporating archived file footage far less daunting." <ref>Day 54</ref>

Online satire have a more developed incorporation of the real into the mimetic. The form has moved and increasingly blurred the line between news and entertainment, satirizing real news footage as it unfolds and ambushing and interviewing real political leaders. This has only led to the popularity of video and digital satire. <ref> Day, 57 </ref>

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. Lawrence Lessig talks about taking songs and remixing them to make something different <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref>.

Fair use is the right, in some circumstances, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying for it. Fair use enables the creation of new culture, and keeps current copyright holders from being private censors <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

=== Open Source ===

The public domain is the commons of information where nothing is owned and all is permitted <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>.

The acronym "API" stands for Application Programming Interface <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire is an open source application.

Essentially, an open API is something that can be modified<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire uses other ideas and "modifies" them, so the API for satire would be the "program" that satire is using to create its own idea of the same program. ''Open source satire'' relies on the creative works of others in remixing the work to convert it to satire. An example would be when a satirist takes a real news story and converts it to satire. This act of modifying an original source is legally predicated on the original source being ''open source'', or, in other words, not protected by copyright.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>

Because of the open source model which has encouraged the creativity in software since it allows others to modify its function with a potential for unlimited improvement. Mozilla Firefox internet browser is an example of open source software, and the marketplace ultimately determines if the product is successful. Open API, on the other hand, is only open in the sense that others can view the source programming: Twitter and Facebook work like this, where the source code is used to coordinate with other websites and applications. An important distinction between Open Source and Open API is that the former allows users to modify the source code itself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref> Because of "open source" which allows one to make changes it is sometimes seen as more easier to deal with and handle the API where you can only see but there can not be any changes made.

The Creative Commons is kind of like open source and having an API.

''Remixing'' recreates, using digital technologies, existing content into something new that is then added to our culture.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref> The remixed creation relies on existing content being available to the remixers. Fair Use statutes govern this process, thereby either encouraging or stifling this creative process. Many believe existing copyright law does not adequately address the best model for an increasingly digitalized 21st century and that change is needed in the form of new law. Others, like Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, believe existing copyright and fair use law have been misinterpreted and misappropriated to serve only large commercial interests. Their book ''Reclaiming Fair Use'' argues that "fair use" is often misunderstood; they challenge the "widely held notion that current copyright law has become unworkable and obsolete in the era of digital technologies," thereby hoping to "reshape the debate in both scholarly circles and the creative community." <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/reclaiming</ref>

You cannot transmit what you know under a certain set of circumstances. The effect includes open source software, critical in web based communications. Most intellect is produced in this form to capture a component of the net. Software has done this in a way that is very visible because it is measurable. NASA did an experiment where they took images of Mars, and instead of having multiple Ph.d.s working all the time, they put images on the web. Now many people use it to map, which is indestinguishable from those made by individuals with a P.h.d.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html</ref>

A remix is a creation of an idea that bases its own idea from a source from past ideas. Remixing can be dangerous if the creator of the remix does not follow the copyright laws that are put in place to protect an individuals idea from being copied<ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

Remix culture is a term used to describe a society which allows and encourages derivative works. Remix is defined as combining or editing existing materials to produce a new product. A Remix Culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the work of copyright holders. <ref>http://www.everythingisaremix.info/</ref>

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. In a new media context, a remix is the combination of two different pieces of media to form a new piece of media. For example, a voiceover and Hollywood movie can be remixed together to form a new video. Remix works best when the source materials are totally different from each other, like Romantic Comedies vs. Biblical Dramas, or when they comment on or critique the other. <ref>http://popculturepirate.com/2011/09/23/what-is-a-remix-exactly/</ref>

=== Memes ===

A meme is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." <ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme</ref>. The word "meme" is derived from the greek word "mimeme" which means "something imitated" and was coined for its modern definition by British biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 for his idea on evolutionary processes for explaining how ideas and culture spread as a natural process of communicating <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=YphlBwpbJCUC&pg=PA16</ref>. The theory of evolution applied to memes as noted by Dawkins says that memes either evolve and adapt with their shared meaning or they die out and become extinct. We can see this in our modern use of memes as they come and go.

A meme typically raises questions of justice and fairness and is built by remixing an existing idea. In visual form, the existing idea often represents a public while the meme represents a counterpublic. Memes sometimes, however, function only to relay humor as in the case of “Success Kid,” <ref>http://memegenerator.net/Success-Kid</ref> who argues ''anything'' or ''nothing'' depending on the user added content superimposed onto his fabric. Humor-only memes are little more than a condensed joke, but social-activist memes can be powerful agents of change. Additionally, a broader movement like Occupy Wall Street <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref> can also be considered a meme when this visual fabric idea is extrapolated to represent specific ideas superimposed upon broader ones. OWS demonstrations vary widely on the specific minor goal, vehicle, or agency, but the underlying fabric (the meme fabric) is the broader idea that 99% of citizens should have more influence than the 1% who currently control American government. As long as the specific goal is in concert with the broader one, the OWS movement has unity in direction. In this way, OWS can be compared to general “Success Kid” who is set by users into a variety of specific contexts. By contrast, the visual framework of “Success Kid” is more discrete in this application and generally represents what most consider being a ''meme''.

Occupy Wall Street was, essentially, a type of meme. Memes are expressions used to portray an idea or belief to prove a point. In the Occupy Wall Street, people were expressing their ideas to help prove a point to what they were demanding <ref>Week 5</ref>. Even though sometimes the point that you are trying to get across is not seen, meme leave powerful statements.

The Arab Spring brought down cruel dictatorships and brought in freedom, democracy and change from existing political and economic systems <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref>.

Susan Blackmore argues that humanity has spawned a new kind of meme. She says the new form of meme is spread by the technology that we've created <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>.

What makes a meme is not specifically the picture or idea that is repeatedly used, but the variety of ways that the same picture or idea is manipulated to express ideas of the certain creator<ref>http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/how-to-explain-what-a-meme-is-in-one-image</ref> The way that meme is expressed by different people is unique, and can different in the way that meme can never be seen as dull but rather spontaneous.

Phil T. Rich argues that "memes are media viruses that spread throughout the population. Urban legends, fleeting fashions, and idiotic ad slogans that work their way into everyday conversations are memes <ref>Day 165</ref>. Moreover, memes can be used as a culture of resistance" <ref>Day 166</ref>

Meme have allowed people to express themselves, and their viewpoint in ways that usually they could not. With meme people with have that tool to express their thoughts and ideas to the world.

Susan Blackmore describes how ''mimetics'' (the working of memes) operates like a virus or a progression of an idea after the Darwinian evolutionary model, where design comes forth out of chaos. "Going viral" happens when an idea spreads like a virus, mutating as it goes. Certain viruses are clearly more contagious than others, and the marketplace of ideas dictates a particular idea's status in the digital world. The digital public decides what goes viral by their decision whether to forward an idea, meme, or viral concept. She coins the term ''teme'' as being a technologically themed meme. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>

An interesting concept called ''countermeme'' was illustrated by Mike Godwin who postulated that the longer an internet discussion continues, the probability that someone mentions ''Hitler'' or ''Nazi'', etc., moves closer to 1. Subsequent citing of "Godwin's Law" to combat this argumentative tactic has found its way into a surprising number of discussion threads on various topics, effectively becoming a countermeme.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html</ref>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satire is used to go against power and oppression.

Satire is verbal aggression of some aspect being exposed to ridicule.

=References=
<references/>

Digital Satire

2012-07-30T17:31:34Z

Jeff: /* Community */

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion consisting of various methods used in attempting to persuade an audience.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric</ref> A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref> Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively. It is essential to understand how to use logos, pathos, and ethos in order to effectively persuade your audience. There are five cannons of rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Using the five canons of rhetoric you can build an effective argument.

Rhetoric aims to improve speech skills by improving the way a speaker of a specialized audience speaks to his or her audience<ref>day1</ref>.

=== Satire ===

Satire being a more literary genre which is seen to use more of a sense of criticism towards a specific person or group<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms.

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant" (Frye) - but parody, and burlesque are frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satire is used to make a mockery of an individual or group that has failed to act as the followers of the individual or group wanted them to. Satire is usually applied to a subject where the failed individual or group has failed in<ref>day1</ref>.

Satirical works often contain "straight" humour. Laughter is not an essential component of satire,(Corum 175)[[fix this citation]] as in spectrum of satire there are types that are not meant to arise laughter and be "funny".

Conversely, not all humour is necessarily "satirical", even on such topics as politics, religion or art, or even when it uses the satirical tools of irony, parody, and burlesque <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satirical playwright Dario Fo pointed out the difference between satire and teasing. Teasing is the reactionary side of the comic, it limits itself to a shallow parody of physical appearance. Satire instead uses the comic to go against power and its oppressions, has a subversive character, and a moral dimension which draws judgement against its targets <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Teasing is an ancient form of simple buffoonery, a form of comedy without satire's subversive edge. Teasing includes light and affectionate parody, good-humoured mockery, simple one-dimensional poking fun, benign spoofs. Teasing typically consists in a impersonation of someone monkeying around with his exterior attributes, tics, physical blemishes, voice and mannerisms, quirks, way of dressing and walking, the phrases he typically repeats. By contrast, teasing never touches on the core issue, never makes a serious criticism judging the target with irony; it never harms the target's conduct, ideology and position of power; it never undermines the perception of his morality and cultural dimension <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Critics tend to see irony, parody, and satire as diminishing meaning (by belittling the subject), but as Harold Bloom reminds us, the great ironists such as Shakespeare tended to expand meaning (13)[[fix this citation]]. Satire is provocative, not dismissive - a crucial point that critics typically ignore when assessing its role in public discourse <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>.

Test argues that play and laughter constitute and define all satiric undertakings and distinguish it from other forms of aesthetic expression with which it is sometimes confused with "humor, comedy, social criticism, parody, burlesque, farce and travesty"(13)[[fix this citation]].

Again, there has been some controversy over whether laughter is a necessary component or distinguishing feature of satire. Laughter is ultimately something satire may or may not produce within the audience. It is not something that resides in the artistic expression itself. Satire does not need to be funny. <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions <ref>http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/E/enthymeme.htm</ref>.The meaning of enthymemes has to do with an unanswered statement which is made by a person, which allows someone to find the conclusion of the statement on their own by being able to understand the statement <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme</ref>. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. A skillful use of satire can engage the audience in a more constructive way by appealing to its imagination as well as engaging the intellect <ref> http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0</ref>Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is looked to, for its ability to unmask and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy <Ref>Day 12</Ref>.The image of physically unveiling something or someone is one that recurs again and again in discussions of satire<Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.12</ref>. Also, satire has been feared and banned because it is seen as a powerful force (Feinberg)<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf</ref>[[fix this citation]]. I would even argue that contemporary, mediatized political satire is being mobilized in a fairly populist register, as seemingly average Joes attempt to take down the mighty <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.9</ref>.
Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of Jon Stewart <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE</ref> and Stephen Colbert <ref>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879</ref>, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

According to Hutcheon <ref>Day 12</ref> a more idealistic view holds that satire and irony have "the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very 'sites' of discourse." Also, Lillian and Edward Bloom go on to explain, that satire ultimately has little political effect because it does not in itself initiate change and, in fact, rarely encourages it <ref>Day 12</ref>.

Satire can play a big role in public debate. There are bloggers that post ideas anonymously on the internet, and there are people that challenge those in power <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.
Also, certain tools lend themselves more fully to digital satire to give back to society. The internet is a good tool based on the fact that anyone can use it <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011), pp. 11-13.</Ref>. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" <Ref>Day 21</Ref>. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.
3.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

Having the identity as being "anonymous" is seen for people who want to keep their information that they post private, or they could be scared about the backlash of any comments that might be made.But for you to create an identity online you might create a blog, or twitter, or have facebook to have yoourself know for the digital world.

For satire to be effective, it must be sincere at the core, it must allow others to build an understanding between the idea of satire and its viewpoint.Day argues that ''ironic authenticity'' is to satire what ''credibility'' is to traditional argumentation. Just because satire is comedic does not mean it is not at the same time serious; and since satire is becoming increasingly popular, she asserts, "for many, irony is becoming a new marker of sincerity."<ref>Day 42</ref>

Digital Satire allows collaboration through social networks, with the result being potentially better than a smaller team. This vastly more unlimited vehicle takes advantage of more creative talents at work on a project, and at the same time overthrows the need for an institutionalized structure traditionally required for such collaboration, as Clay Shirky points out."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref> Digital satire created in this way becomes the product of a group effort that potentially maximizes its value in the social marketplace of ideas. The value of Digital Satire will allow certain product in the digital world to made an impact to the world.

Satire puts more action rather than factual information to the news. The news is used to give factual information and NOT persuade anyone with the information given while digital satire uses the news and rhetoric techniques to influence and persuade its audience of a factual information being , blatantly put, "stupid<ref>day4week4</ref>." The goal of the daily news is to give you what has been informed to a certain indiviual from other indiviual who ahs collected all this data. Where as digital satire takes what has been reported and puts a new twist to things and makes you see it in different ways rather then so narrow minded.

When satire derives from news which is originally or secondarily hosted online, they involve far fewer impersonations, sketches based around politician's personal foibles, and entirely made-up news items. Instead, they rely heavily on deconstructions of real news events, as well as interviews or ambushes of actual public figures, blending the mimetic and the real. They tread a much finer line between news and entertainmen, satire and political argument. This has thrust these programs into serious public debate and creating much cultural anxiety. <ref>Day, 43</ref>

Digital satire uses social media to express opinions and information in a satirical way. It uses more action to express information rather than just facts as the news would do which can potentially bring more attention to the topic at hand, bringing more audience to its news.

Satire has not just perpective to it, rather it has many different ones, but the goal of satire is to get your point or messgae across, and do it in a sarcastic, and humorous way.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity vs. Privacy ===

Danah Boyd looks at the changing faces of “Networked Privacy,” asserting that U.S. privacy laws of the 1970s are not applicable in 2010 and furthermore that there is no current agreement on “what privacy is, or what it means to actually protect it in the first place.” She points to a mother who created a public webpage of her family’s genealogy that included maiden names, the most common internet security question, as an example of the conflict between the desire for social connectedness and privacy.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>

Some argue that the internet’s public nature must be preserved if it is to act as a medium to enact popular goals. Jillian York talks about how internet connectivity is a major force for public activism, agreeing with blogger Andrew Trench’s estimate that if the 2011 struggles in “Egypt and Tunisia are valid case studies, it looks like internet penetration of around 20%” is the threshold for effective mobilization of ground-level activism.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>

When we interact in a physical environment our conversations are private by default until we go out of our way to make it very public <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Also, online privacy is public by default and private through effort <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. So by letting your informaiton be known by other indiviuals that is when you have allowed your private information to become public.

Privacy isn't about restricting access to information, it's about having that moment of control and agency <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Agency should not be taken away, because then people can't achieve privacy. Whatever people feel that needs to be priavte and kept to themselves is that shjould be private and confinded to them.

Danah Boyd asked, “How do you protect privacy?” <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref> Public internet is one of the main catalysts in the advancement of the technological era. The internet is the foundation of so many new age markets that its existences are vital. But in saying that nothing on the internet is 100% secure. There are so many potential hazardous users that even those things intended for privacy can be accessed. The right training in the wrong hands could decode any encryption. The YouTube video made the connection that privacy has this individual centric nature and stated, “sharing to be seen but trying to protect themselves to not be seen by certain people” relating to the regulation of the individuals of children. I would make the argument there is no such thing as private internet, the term is a paradox in itself which is globally interconnected can’t be private.

Privacy is the act of controlling what you do or say to others rather than the restriction of information from others. We control how private we want to be by not putting those images you wanted to put up on Facebook <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. The internet has become to public and needs to find some sense of privacy. Users of the internet decide to make whatever they place on the internet public for anyone to see <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Privacy today, and privacy 10 years ago has changed in the sense that you can go online and figure out how to hack into someones computer and find their information thanks to the help of the internet.

Many people take the argument that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," which is a common argument in favor of a lack of privacy when it comes to matters of security. However, debate surrounding less devistating or incriminating evidence is much more heated. Privacy encompasses many ideas and it is therefore rather a combination of acts rather than one. The nothing to hide argument however is based on an underlying premise that assumes that what one wants to hide is bad, which is not always the case. In any ineraction it is impossible to keep things completely private, especially once global media is encorporated. <ref>http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/</ref>

Meanwhile, digital access is the internet, the computer, and mobile access <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>.

Next, there are millions of individuals making their own videos for web distribution <ref>Day 25</ref>. These are created at every level of production quality, from shaky camera-phone footage to sophisticated animation <ref>Day 25</ref>. Any indiviual these days can post a video of anything whether their intention is to help or harm you.Being able to block, or track indiviuals who post violent or harmful videos will help people who have been harmed by the hateful video post.

Also, sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet are used to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity <ref>http://personas.media.mit.edu/</ref>.

Meanwhile, our digital identities are entities that need to be managed, so what appears online tends to be a highly sanitized version of us <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>. Danah Boyle talks about the issue of digital identity <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>; she says: “in any given situation, an individual presents a face, which is the social presentation of one facet of their identity."

Moreover, a digital identity is created through the use of various social media outlets, the most popular being Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. One can also create a digital identity linked to their name if they comment or subscribe to a forum. According to an article by Naumi Haque, a great deal of contrast often exists between our real personalities and our digital identities. Since this is almost always the case, is our so-called digital identity really an identity, or is it more of a digital fingerprint of our true identity? Haque thinks that for now at least the fingerprint metaphor is probably more accurate; but as technology increases, he sees a day when even things we don't know about ourselves will be obvious to our digital selves.<ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

The reason being we're constantly being monitored; our online social presence is constantly being reviewed by supervisors and hiring managers along with the rest of the general public. Therefore, people are advised to not share the same information online that they would in an intimate setting with friends and family.If people know, and feel that they are being monitored that prevents them from trying to do any wrond doing which could harm any indiviuals.

Your digital identity is created online by what you do, or say, online for others to see. So by putting yourself out there for the world to see is like opening the door for people to acess everthing about you. Johari Window created a 2x2 matrix to explain what information is known about you to you and/or others. The Arena describes the information that you and others know about each other while the Unknown describes the information that you and others do not know about you on the internet. There is also the facade, which describes the information that you know but do not what to share with others, while the Blind Spot explains information that you don't know about your own digital identity which others know <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>.

Online identity is a rhetorical term itself because to be online means to be recognized by and connected to a server. Hence, for in order to be recognized one is also synonymously identified. Once one ventures on the internet on immediately gains as online identity. Now what create the difference in the types of identities are its usage purposes. The internet is by design, a communication interface where one is giving or exchanging information. The giving and receiving of information can also be considered rhetorical because no answer is required.

Every individual who uses the internet has an online identity. Whether that said individual uses the internet to post on social networking sites, search topics of interest, or to read the news; all of the information that they associate with contributes to their identity. Sometimes, individuals use means within their reach to create a false identity, i.e. setting up a fake account. More often however, individuals er on the side of caution and tend to form their identity in the best light possible. They do this by overestimating their achievements and underestimating their failures. The perception of themselves that is shared with others online is fragmented, meaning that it is missing sometimes often critical components of who a person is or what they believe. Even before social networking took over the internet, indivdiuals presented only materials that they knew about themselves and were willing to share with the general public. In that respect, not much has changed. Except that now indivdiuals should be more aware of the material that they contribute to online, since it is more difficult to erase. <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

=== Community ===

According to Warner, "a public is a social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse"(90). "No single text can create a public. Nor can a single voice, a single genre, even a single medium. All are insufficient to create the kind of reflexivity that we call a public, since a public is understood to be an ongoing space of encounter for discourse" <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>. In other words, a public is a space where people can come together for discourse. In the case of satire, writers come together to produce something that is subversive but still humorous. Philosopher Benjamin Barber had a different view when defining the public. Barber saw the public as a people coming together because of their shared discourse, not to create/collaborate <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

Publics tend to mobolize others to action because writing, speaking, blogging requires indvidiuals to engage in a much larger network. The idea of a public tends to put pressure on a writer, by suggesting that his argument must be framed for a particular audience who have similar or dissimmilar viewpoints; this is dependent upon the goal of the written work. Social constraints also act to play a role in determining the dynamic between the public. Exploring mutuality may create a sense of "we" but also has the danger to create an "us" against "them mentality". <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

According to Fraser a singular public sphere can never adequately represent all factions within a stratified society, meaning that it has always been essential for subaltern groups to form their own counterpublic spheres <ref>Day 132</ref>. She stresses that these smaller publics are not inevitably about separatism; rather, they function as "bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics" <ref>Day 132</ref>.

Counterpublics exist to combat another public. Day uses Michael Warner's definition: [counterpublics are] "those publics constituted through a conflictual relation to the dominant, . . . [and] somehow subordinate to the prevailing culture."<ref>Day 132</ref> An interesting and important qualification, however, is that counterpublics need not necessarily consist of "otherwise marginalized individuals," since the ''issue'', and not the ''person'', is subordinate to the larger public.<ref>Day 132</ref>

A "public" is a group a people that share similar ideas and form a group to convey their ideas to the world. Counterpublics are publics formed to disband or argue against a certain public formed on an idea that the counterpublic does not agree with. Because of the scenario in which a counterpublic is formed, counterpublics cannot be of existence if its adverse public does not exist<ref>week4</ref>.

The meaning behind "The Public" is to be part of a group that is most comfortable speaking directly and for whom the ideal realtionship among is one of efficiency. Another model for a ''public'' focuses on the more traditional medium of ''writing'', as Phyllis Ryder says in her article: "As David Bartholomae and Joseph Harris have long argued that academics are inherently intertextual creatures, so Warner argues that the publics, too, are constituted by the circulation of texts."<ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

With rhetorical commnity it is seen as any group involved in using language to persuade or convince. Such as lawmakers, politcians, stockbrokers, etc. they could be thought as separate communities within society that skilled in using rhetoric<ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_rhetorical_community</ref>.

rhetorical communities are not a single unified whole but a mix of numerous limited or local communities and of individuals who typically participate in not one but several of these communities.</ref>http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Publications/Texts/rhetoric.html [[fix this citation]]

A rhetorical community builds the creation of public interest, common goods, and active citizens <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

A public is a group of people that perform in a similar way. It is a group of people that have similar ideas or goals <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

According to Simon Clark, the best way to create a community is to bond people together by means of a special event or a shared interest (i.e. movie night in your local neighborhood). The importance of creating a community is to not be discouraged by a lack of commitment on the part of others. Stepping out of your comfort zone will allow you to meet people who share the same ideas and goals as you. The point of a community is to bring together people with a common knowledge in which they can share and express their interests among those who they are well acquainted with. <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

Moreover, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. This can be an online peer group <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Also, an insert needs to be set up, and everyone in the neighborhood needs to sign up <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>.

Richard Millington states that in order to create a good community online you need four steps. The First is to find a metric to measure the success of the community. The second step is to Identify who your first members will be, while doing so you should establish what issues will be discussed and what source of technology will be used and how. After that identifying what type of online community it is and what the big appeal is will be essential to making the community work. Last but not least after all these steps are covered the final step is to launch the community and to devise strategies in order to keep growing. <ref>http://www.feverbee.com/2008/12/how-do-you-build-an-online-community.html</ref>. Being able to follow these steps, while grow a positive and uplifting community will benefit your community in many ways.

Meanwhile, the enabling technologies are based on the internet <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Finally, the web has changed communities."Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through AdSense" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "eBay solved the prisoner's dilemma" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia with a million and a half articles in two hundred languages" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

The web has allowed the communication between the people inside the communities to live a safer life in the sense that it allows those people to keep contact with one another if there might an issue or problem in their community. Such as twitter, facebook, and etc allows parents and kids stay involved with what might be going on in their very own back yards. Having twitter and facebook allows communities to be formed in a online perpective. Having eye and ears in the streets, and communicating online allows people to keep their homes safe.

Howard Rheingold emphasizes the world of collaboration, collaborative life. Simon Clark states, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Both Rheingold and Clarks information connect; the world of collaboration means a group of people are involved in something. Clark covered that a movie night would be an eventful night for a community of people (pick a night and make sure everyone knows about it). This illustrates the power of collaboration made possible through digital media. Rheingold talked about (in 2005) a coming world of “collaboration, participatory media, and collective action,” and certainly Wikipedia has achieved his model on a global level. He observed that every computer is a printing press, a broadcast booth, and a marketplace. The infrastructure is there, he argued, thus he urged communities to “get the cooperation project started.”<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>

An overview/recap of all the videos:[[all what videos?]] Howard Rheingold talks about “Wikipedia and how it affects the natural instinct of the human people” <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. . Wikipedia is not there to compete but for people to come together to work on a common project. Craig Newmark says relates a community with transparency and accountability, people need to be able to see what/why your doing it and be accountable for it. Simon Clark states “you need to come together, with a common and shared experience comes a healthy community” <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. The idea that it is possible to create a community even though there is still a lack of transparency or collaboration but at the same time we could still bring those together and build a community.

Clark's vision shows collaboration and partnership not limited to the digital sphere, as he demonstrates by his organizing of weekly, casual cookouts in his small neighborhood. He reminds us that traditional reality should not be overlooked in lieu of modern cyberspace. As the world moves further and further toward digital communities, it is helpful to remember that we ourselves are physical beings living in physical space, that communities need not be digital to be relevant.<ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

When it comes to personal identity, is there really a real you? This idea of personal identity is closely tied to communities; your actions of personal identity will affect the community. The connection between community and satire can be knowing the audience and as well as the responses. Can satire provide transparency, accountability, or a shared experience? Publics are by a common text, not just a word document or book but an experience. Collaboration, shared experience, transparency or accountability is ways we can try to create communities.

Communities form through four ideas; collaboration, shared experience, transparency, and accountability. People need to have a shared representation of what their community stands for while everyone included in the community needs to know what is going on in their community and account for what the community is doing as a whole <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Community specific irony can function in an elitest manner. This creates a form of competency and knowledge that goes hand in hand with economic competency. While online communities have learned much from education and exposure they also acknoweldge that in becoming so, online communities trade a form of distinction for a more public and general coomunity. Developments in technology have made it easier to pick up and take apart media around us, individuals have a new forum upon which hey can enter into public discussion, free from mainstream media. These new technologies link average citizens, professionals, and activists to exchange in discourse that may have not been available in any other form. <ref> Day, 40-42 </ref>

=== Institutions ===

"The remix becomes an act of social creativity."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "It potentially changes the way we relate to each other."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "All of our normal social interactions become an invitation to collective expression."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> It's our real social lives that are transformed into art.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

The remix refers to individuals who use shared culture as a kind of language to communicate something to an audience. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Also, the social remix is used to mediate people's relationships with each other.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Lawrence Lessig shows how Republicans have been more open to creative sharing than Democrats, owing he argues to Republicans' shared ideology that separates out the creative potential of the individual from the collective corporatist structure, thus having more of a respect for creators' rights to ''remix'' a copyrighted endeavor for the collective good.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

A remix can be used in satire to more accurately "mock" an idea or subject that the satire is trying to explain. A remix is modified versions of an earlier idea<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>. The term remix is used when a creator uses what the past creators has provided to create new, innovative ideas<ref>http://www.ehow.com/about_6534470_remix-vs_-plagiarism-films.html</ref>. The satire in remixing always seemed to be funny a good example is the clip of our former president George W.Bush<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEbZqvMu2cQ&feature=related</ref>.

Coorination costs are the financial difficulties in arranging group output. if you want to coordinate the work of people you create an institution which brings resources together and coordinate the activity of the groups. Cooperation needs to be put into the infastructure without regard to institutional models. There are a large number of people on the internet, but not everyone has what you need to create an infastructure. You need to draw them in to create a way to make an institution to meet a certain goal. This creates a need for management and structure (economic, physical, legal), as well as breaking down exlcusionary matters. Essentially, in creating cooperation into infastructure to create institutions, closed groups and companies will give way to looser networks where small contributors have big roles and fluid cooperation replaces rigid planning. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref>

According to Howard Rheingold, we live a collaborative life. For Example: Wikipedia is a natural instinct of people working as a group. Wikipedia is not there to compete but people coming together to work on a common project. The print press came along within decades and millions of people became literate, new forms of collective actions emerged within the spheres of knowledge, religion, politics, and wealth.

Publics and counterpublics, mentioned above, are fast becoming institutions in and of themselves. Seth Godwin argues that the old ideas of ''tribalism'' have reemerged during the digital era, resulting in more diversity of thought and action than what was assumed would be the case with our modern hyper-connectivity. Now, fringe individuals who were before powerless to advance their ideas, can join with like minds through a variety of social networking options thus leveraging their effectiveness in the marketplace of ideas. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead.html</ref>

=== Audience ===

A rhetorical situation can act as as a natural context of persons, events, objects, and relations which strongly invites utterance. This therefore occurs naturally in the rhetorical situation, and is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity. This helps to define rhetorical character of which the three requirements of audience, constraints, and exigence are necessarily important for rhetorical discourse. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

The audience has the ability to set the discourse, to focus on cues from the writer. Therefore, the audience has assumed power in that it is regarded as having attitudes, beliefs, and expectations that are known to the writer. Even though writers feel that they can never truly know their audience but can invoke emotion from them, or create an image for themlittle guidence when it comes to his readers.Not knowing your audience is a common struggle for writers, but being able to create the same image that you see when ou write make it easier.However, this model seems to put more emphasis on the writer than on the discourse or the dynamic between the writer and audience that acts to facilitate a rhetorical situation. The appropriate rhetorical situation has a balance of creativity from the writer and the creativity of the reader. By understanding the needs of an audience, and whether that audience is addressed (assumed) or invoked (imagined), a communicator has a better chance of reaching that audience.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

An audience is (universal/particular -- those capable of being influenced and those capable of influencing) <ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref> Lloyd F. Bitzer defines ''rhetorical situation'' as "a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance."<ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Thus defined, since such a confluence of parts is naturally changing, an effective speaker should recognize and adapt to these changes in order to effectively reach that audience.

An audience is the group of people that a rhetorical writer and/or speaker is trying to persuade into the beliefs of what that rhetoric writer wants to the audience to realize<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> Even though the writer has no control over who reads what pieces of literature, the writer atleast tries to lead certain readers to his or her works.

"There are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience."<ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref>
Discourse is Situated: 1) For audience, possibly pairing with content course 2) against hypothetical or physical audience and instead focuses on "cues" that writers use.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> But Ede and Lunsford state that this oversimplifies the complexities of audience in the rhetorical situation. <ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

There is an indefinite amount of information for the rhetor to choose from in a situation. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Meaning that the rhetor can select the information he or she feels is relevant to the argument they are making in their satire. This view is opposite of Lloyd F. Bitzer's, who defines a rhetorical situation as "natural and objective." <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> However, if rhetorical situations were objective, then there would not be much room for discourse let alone satire. Richard E. Vatz makes the same argument against Bitzer in the following article. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

Fears about privacy come with new technology. We have new tools that enable us to do so much. If all we do is pay attention to is privacy, we loose publicness. You can get great benefit from sharing. Others may similarly benefit from what you have to contribute. Often it can be seen as selfish to hold back. In addressing policy, it is critical to understand your risks and goals when assessing how much information to share with the public. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

We may look more deeply into our audience in building our message. As Vatz makes the point, How the rhetor interprets events plays a huge part in creating meaning, and doesn’t create a set rhetorical response to an exigence; thus, Vatz feels he is putting more responsibility on the rhetor: “the rhetor is responsible for what he [sic] chooses to make salient” (168).

Class Debate: Satire is serious. It informs people who are apathetic by entertainment. Satirical news can be more entertaining than the regular news. Satire is arguably better than the regular news because it is straight forward with no intentions of hurting feelings and not being afraid of peoples’ reactions. These commentators make it so that one can understand the issue at hand. The introduction of satire is so attention grabbing it gets you into the news. Satire still gets the current event point across while showing flaws in people/groups. This news brings in a different audience, young ones who do not watch the news. Satire is still funny but at the same time plays a serious role.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tribes and Attention

"Publicness" is about organizing movements or clubs. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

If all we do is pay attention to privacy, then we may lose the opportunities and benefits of publicness. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html</ref>

Satire and Tradition

Video and digital technologies make it relatively easy and inexpensive for the staff of ''The Daily Show'', to obtain and edit the day's newsclips.<ref>Day 54</ref> And, as John Caldwell points out, "By 2000, widespread use of digital servers (allowing random and multiple access to image and sound) made the task of finding and incorporating archived file footage far less daunting." <ref>Day 54</ref>

Online satire have a more developed incorporation of the real into the mimetic. The form has moved and increasingly blurred the line between news and entertainment, satirizing real news footage as it unfolds and ambushing and interviewing real political leaders. This has only led to the popularity of video and digital satire. <ref> Day, 57 </ref>

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. Lawrence Lessig talks about taking songs and remixing them to make something different <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref>.

Fair use is the right, in some circumstances, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying for it. Fair use enables the creation of new culture, and keeps current copyright holders from being private censors <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

=== Open Source ===

The public domain is the commons of information where nothing is owned and all is permitted <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>.

The acronym "API" stands for Application Programming Interface <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire is an open source application.

Essentially, an open API is something that can be modified<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire uses other ideas and "modifies" them, so the API for satire would be the "program" that satire is using to create its own idea of the same program. ''Open source satire'' relies on the creative works of others in remixing the work to convert it to satire. An example would be when a satirist takes a real news story and converts it to satire. This act of modifying an original source is legally predicated on the original source being ''open source'', or, in other words, not protected by copyright.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>

Because of the open source model which has encouraged the creativity in software since it allows others to modify its function with a potential for unlimited improvement. Mozilla Firefox internet browser is an example of open source software, and the marketplace ultimately determines if the product is successful. Open API, on the other hand, is only open in the sense that others can view the source programming: Twitter and Facebook work like this, where the source code is used to coordinate with other websites and applications. An important distinction between Open Source and Open API is that the former allows users to modify the source code itself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref> Because of "open source" which allows one to make changes it is sometimes seen as more easier to deal with and handle the API where you can only see but there can not be any changes made.

The Creative Commons is kind of like open source and having an API.

''Remixing'' recreates, using digital technologies, existing content into something new that is then added to our culture.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref> The remixed creation relies on existing content being available to the remixers. Fair Use statutes govern this process, thereby either encouraging or stifling this creative process. Many believe existing copyright law does not adequately address the best model for an increasingly digitalized 21st century and that change is needed in the form of new law. Others, like Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, believe existing copyright and fair use law have been misinterpreted and misappropriated to serve only large commercial interests. Their book ''Reclaiming Fair Use'' argues that "fair use" is often misunderstood; they challenge the "widely held notion that current copyright law has become unworkable and obsolete in the era of digital technologies," thereby hoping to "reshape the debate in both scholarly circles and the creative community." <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/reclaiming</ref>

You cannot transmit what you know under a certain set of circumstances. The effect includes open source software, critical in web based communications. Most intellect is produced in this form to capture a component of the net. Software has done this in a way that is very visible because it is measurable. NASA did an experiment where they took images of Mars, and instead of having multiple Ph.d.s working all the time, they put images on the web. Now many people use it to map, which is indestinguishable from those made by individuals with a P.h.d.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html</ref>

A remix is a creation of an idea that bases its own idea from a source from past ideas. Remixing can be dangerous if the creator of the remix does not follow the copyright laws that are put in place to protect an individuals idea from being copied<ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

Remix culture is a term used to describe a society which allows and encourages derivative works. Remix is defined as combining or editing existing materials to produce a new product. A Remix Culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the work of copyright holders. <ref>http://www.everythingisaremix.info/</ref>

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. In a new media context, a remix is the combination of two different pieces of media to form a new piece of media. For example, a voiceover and Hollywood movie can be remixed together to form a new video. Remix works best when the source materials are totally different from each other, like Romantic Comedies vs. Biblical Dramas, or when they comment on or critique the other. <ref>http://popculturepirate.com/2011/09/23/what-is-a-remix-exactly/</ref>

=== Memes ===

A meme is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." <ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme</ref>. The word "meme" is derived from the greek word "mimeme" which means "something imitated" and was coined for its modern definition by British biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 for his idea on evolutionary processes for explaining how ideas and culture spread as a natural process of communicating <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=YphlBwpbJCUC&pg=PA16</ref>. The theory of evolution applied to memes as noted by Dawkins says that memes either evolve and adapt with their shared meaning or they die out and become extinct. We can see this in our modern use of memes as they come and go.

A meme typically raises questions of justice and fairness and is built by remixing an existing idea. In visual form, the existing idea often represents a public while the meme represents a counterpublic. Memes sometimes, however, function only to relay humor as in the case of “Success Kid,” <ref>http://memegenerator.net/Success-Kid</ref> who argues ''anything'' or ''nothing'' depending on the user added content superimposed onto his fabric. Humor-only memes are little more than a condensed joke, but social-activist memes can be powerful agents of change. Additionally, a broader movement like Occupy Wall Street <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref> can also be considered a meme when this visual fabric idea is extrapolated to represent specific ideas superimposed upon broader ones. OWS demonstrations vary widely on the specific minor goal, vehicle, or agency, but the underlying fabric (the meme fabric) is the broader idea that 99% of citizens should have more influence than the 1% who currently control American government. As long as the specific goal is in concert with the broader one, the OWS movement has unity in direction. In this way, OWS can be compared to general “Success Kid” who is set by users into a variety of specific contexts. By contrast, the visual framework of “Success Kid” is more discrete in this application and generally represents what most consider being a ''meme''.

Occupy Wall Street was, essentially, a type of meme. Memes are expressions used to portray an idea or belief to prove a point. In the Occupy Wall Street, people were expressing their ideas to help prove a point to what they were demanding <ref>Week 5</ref>. Even though sometimes the point that you are trying to get across is not seen, meme leave powerful statements.

The Arab Spring brought down cruel dictatorships and brought in freedom, democracy and change from existing political and economic systems <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref>.

Susan Blackmore argues that humanity has spawned a new kind of meme. She says the new form of meme is spread by the technology that we've created <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>.

What makes a meme is not specifically the picture or idea that is repeatedly used, but the variety of ways that the same picture or idea is manipulated to express ideas of the certain creator<ref>http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/how-to-explain-what-a-meme-is-in-one-image</ref> The way that meme is expressed by different people is unique, and can different in the way that meme can never be seen as dull but rather spontaneous.

Phil T. Rich argues that "memes are media viruses that spread throughout the population. Urban legends, fleeting fashions, and idiotic ad slogans that work their way into everyday conversations are memes <ref>Day 165</ref>. Moreover, memes can be used as a culture of resistance" <ref>Day 166</ref>

Meme have allowed people to express themselves, and their viewpoint in ways that usually they could not. With meme people with have that tool to express their thoughts and ideas to the world.

Susan Blackmore describes how ''mimetics'' (the working of memes) operates like a virus or a progression of an idea after the Darwinian evolutionary model, where design comes forth out of chaos. "Going viral" happens when an idea spreads like a virus, mutating as it goes. Certain viruses are clearly more contagious than others, and the marketplace of ideas dictates a particular idea's status in the digital world. The digital public decides what goes viral by their decision whether to forward an idea, meme, or viral concept. She coins the term ''teme'' as being a technologically themed meme. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>

An interesting concept called ''countermeme'' was illustrated by Mike Godwin who postulated that the longer an internet discussion continues, the probability that someone mentions ''Hitler'' or ''Nazi'', etc., moves closer to 1. Subsequent citing of "Godwin's Law" to combat this argumentative tactic has found its way into a surprising number of discussion threads on various topics, effectively becoming a countermeme.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html</ref>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satire is used to go against power and oppression.

Satire is verbal aggression of some aspect being exposed to ridicule.

=References=
<references/>

Digital Satire

2012-07-30T17:29:06Z

Jeff: /* Satire */citations needing to be fixed

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion consisting of various methods used in attempting to persuade an audience.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric</ref> A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref> Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively. It is essential to understand how to use logos, pathos, and ethos in order to effectively persuade your audience. There are five cannons of rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Using the five canons of rhetoric you can build an effective argument.

Rhetoric aims to improve speech skills by improving the way a speaker of a specialized audience speaks to his or her audience<ref>day1</ref>.

=== Satire ===

Satire being a more literary genre which is seen to use more of a sense of criticism towards a specific person or group<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms.

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant" (Frye) - but parody, and burlesque are frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satire is used to make a mockery of an individual or group that has failed to act as the followers of the individual or group wanted them to. Satire is usually applied to a subject where the failed individual or group has failed in<ref>day1</ref>.

Satirical works often contain "straight" humour. Laughter is not an essential component of satire,(Corum 175)[[fix this citation]] as in spectrum of satire there are types that are not meant to arise laughter and be "funny".

Conversely, not all humour is necessarily "satirical", even on such topics as politics, religion or art, or even when it uses the satirical tools of irony, parody, and burlesque <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satirical playwright Dario Fo pointed out the difference between satire and teasing. Teasing is the reactionary side of the comic, it limits itself to a shallow parody of physical appearance. Satire instead uses the comic to go against power and its oppressions, has a subversive character, and a moral dimension which draws judgement against its targets <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Teasing is an ancient form of simple buffoonery, a form of comedy without satire's subversive edge. Teasing includes light and affectionate parody, good-humoured mockery, simple one-dimensional poking fun, benign spoofs. Teasing typically consists in a impersonation of someone monkeying around with his exterior attributes, tics, physical blemishes, voice and mannerisms, quirks, way of dressing and walking, the phrases he typically repeats. By contrast, teasing never touches on the core issue, never makes a serious criticism judging the target with irony; it never harms the target's conduct, ideology and position of power; it never undermines the perception of his morality and cultural dimension <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Critics tend to see irony, parody, and satire as diminishing meaning (by belittling the subject), but as Harold Bloom reminds us, the great ironists such as Shakespeare tended to expand meaning (13)[[fix this citation]]. Satire is provocative, not dismissive - a crucial point that critics typically ignore when assessing its role in public discourse <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>.

Test argues that play and laughter constitute and define all satiric undertakings and distinguish it from other forms of aesthetic expression with which it is sometimes confused with "humor, comedy, social criticism, parody, burlesque, farce and travesty"(13)[[fix this citation]].

Again, there has been some controversy over whether laughter is a necessary component or distinguishing feature of satire. Laughter is ultimately something satire may or may not produce within the audience. It is not something that resides in the artistic expression itself. Satire does not need to be funny. <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions <ref>http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/E/enthymeme.htm</ref>.The meaning of enthymemes has to do with an unanswered statement which is made by a person, which allows someone to find the conclusion of the statement on their own by being able to understand the statement <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme</ref>. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. A skillful use of satire can engage the audience in a more constructive way by appealing to its imagination as well as engaging the intellect <ref> http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0</ref>Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is looked to, for its ability to unmask and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy <Ref>Day 12</Ref>.The image of physically unveiling something or someone is one that recurs again and again in discussions of satire<Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.12</ref>. Also, satire has been feared and banned because it is seen as a powerful force (Feinberg)<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf</ref>[[fix this citation]]. I would even argue that contemporary, mediatized political satire is being mobilized in a fairly populist register, as seemingly average Joes attempt to take down the mighty <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.9</ref>.
Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of Jon Stewart <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE</ref> and Stephen Colbert <ref>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879</ref>, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

According to Hutcheon <ref>Day 12</ref> a more idealistic view holds that satire and irony have "the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very 'sites' of discourse." Also, Lillian and Edward Bloom go on to explain, that satire ultimately has little political effect because it does not in itself initiate change and, in fact, rarely encourages it <ref>Day 12</ref>.

Satire can play a big role in public debate. There are bloggers that post ideas anonymously on the internet, and there are people that challenge those in power <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.
Also, certain tools lend themselves more fully to digital satire to give back to society. The internet is a good tool based on the fact that anyone can use it <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011), pp. 11-13.</Ref>. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" <Ref>Day 21</Ref>. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.
3.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

Having the identity as being "anonymous" is seen for people who want to keep their information that they post private, or they could be scared about the backlash of any comments that might be made.But for you to create an identity online you might create a blog, or twitter, or have facebook to have yoourself know for the digital world.

For satire to be effective, it must be sincere at the core, it must allow others to build an understanding between the idea of satire and its viewpoint.Day argues that ''ironic authenticity'' is to satire what ''credibility'' is to traditional argumentation. Just because satire is comedic does not mean it is not at the same time serious; and since satire is becoming increasingly popular, she asserts, "for many, irony is becoming a new marker of sincerity."<ref>Day 42</ref>

Digital Satire allows collaboration through social networks, with the result being potentially better than a smaller team. This vastly more unlimited vehicle takes advantage of more creative talents at work on a project, and at the same time overthrows the need for an institutionalized structure traditionally required for such collaboration, as Clay Shirky points out."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref> Digital satire created in this way becomes the product of a group effort that potentially maximizes its value in the social marketplace of ideas. The value of Digital Satire will allow certain product in the digital world to made an impact to the world.

Satire puts more action rather than factual information to the news. The news is used to give factual information and NOT persuade anyone with the information given while digital satire uses the news and rhetoric techniques to influence and persuade its audience of a factual information being , blatantly put, "stupid<ref>day4week4</ref>." The goal of the daily news is to give you what has been informed to a certain indiviual from other indiviual who ahs collected all this data. Where as digital satire takes what has been reported and puts a new twist to things and makes you see it in different ways rather then so narrow minded.

When satire derives from news which is originally or secondarily hosted online, they involve far fewer impersonations, sketches based around politician's personal foibles, and entirely made-up news items. Instead, they rely heavily on deconstructions of real news events, as well as interviews or ambushes of actual public figures, blending the mimetic and the real. They tread a much finer line between news and entertainmen, satire and political argument. This has thrust these programs into serious public debate and creating much cultural anxiety. <ref>Day, 43</ref>

Digital satire uses social media to express opinions and information in a satirical way. It uses more action to express information rather than just facts as the news would do which can potentially bring more attention to the topic at hand, bringing more audience to its news.

Satire has not just perpective to it, rather it has many different ones, but the goal of satire is to get your point or messgae across, and do it in a sarcastic, and humorous way.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity vs. Privacy ===

Danah Boyd looks at the changing faces of “Networked Privacy,” asserting that U.S. privacy laws of the 1970s are not applicable in 2010 and furthermore that there is no current agreement on “what privacy is, or what it means to actually protect it in the first place.” She points to a mother who created a public webpage of her family’s genealogy that included maiden names, the most common internet security question, as an example of the conflict between the desire for social connectedness and privacy.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>

Some argue that the internet’s public nature must be preserved if it is to act as a medium to enact popular goals. Jillian York talks about how internet connectivity is a major force for public activism, agreeing with blogger Andrew Trench’s estimate that if the 2011 struggles in “Egypt and Tunisia are valid case studies, it looks like internet penetration of around 20%” is the threshold for effective mobilization of ground-level activism.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>

When we interact in a physical environment our conversations are private by default until we go out of our way to make it very public <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Also, online privacy is public by default and private through effort <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. So by letting your informaiton be known by other indiviuals that is when you have allowed your private information to become public.

Privacy isn't about restricting access to information, it's about having that moment of control and agency <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Agency should not be taken away, because then people can't achieve privacy. Whatever people feel that needs to be priavte and kept to themselves is that shjould be private and confinded to them.

Danah Boyd asked, “How do you protect privacy?” <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref> Public internet is one of the main catalysts in the advancement of the technological era. The internet is the foundation of so many new age markets that its existences are vital. But in saying that nothing on the internet is 100% secure. There are so many potential hazardous users that even those things intended for privacy can be accessed. The right training in the wrong hands could decode any encryption. The YouTube video made the connection that privacy has this individual centric nature and stated, “sharing to be seen but trying to protect themselves to not be seen by certain people” relating to the regulation of the individuals of children. I would make the argument there is no such thing as private internet, the term is a paradox in itself which is globally interconnected can’t be private.

Privacy is the act of controlling what you do or say to others rather than the restriction of information from others. We control how private we want to be by not putting those images you wanted to put up on Facebook <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. The internet has become to public and needs to find some sense of privacy. Users of the internet decide to make whatever they place on the internet public for anyone to see <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Privacy today, and privacy 10 years ago has changed in the sense that you can go online and figure out how to hack into someones computer and find their information thanks to the help of the internet.

Many people take the argument that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," which is a common argument in favor of a lack of privacy when it comes to matters of security. However, debate surrounding less devistating or incriminating evidence is much more heated. Privacy encompasses many ideas and it is therefore rather a combination of acts rather than one. The nothing to hide argument however is based on an underlying premise that assumes that what one wants to hide is bad, which is not always the case. In any ineraction it is impossible to keep things completely private, especially once global media is encorporated. <ref>http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/</ref>

Meanwhile, digital access is the internet, the computer, and mobile access <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>.

Next, there are millions of individuals making their own videos for web distribution <ref>Day 25</ref>. These are created at every level of production quality, from shaky camera-phone footage to sophisticated animation <ref>Day 25</ref>. Any indiviual these days can post a video of anything whether their intention is to help or harm you.Being able to block, or track indiviuals who post violent or harmful videos will help people who have been harmed by the hateful video post.

Also, sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet are used to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity <ref>http://personas.media.mit.edu/</ref>.

Meanwhile, our digital identities are entities that need to be managed, so what appears online tends to be a highly sanitized version of us <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>. Danah Boyle talks about the issue of digital identity <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>; she says: “in any given situation, an individual presents a face, which is the social presentation of one facet of their identity."

Moreover, a digital identity is created through the use of various social media outlets, the most popular being Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. One can also create a digital identity linked to their name if they comment or subscribe to a forum. According to an article by Naumi Haque, a great deal of contrast often exists between our real personalities and our digital identities. Since this is almost always the case, is our so-called digital identity really an identity, or is it more of a digital fingerprint of our true identity? Haque thinks that for now at least the fingerprint metaphor is probably more accurate; but as technology increases, he sees a day when even things we don't know about ourselves will be obvious to our digital selves.<ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

The reason being we're constantly being monitored; our online social presence is constantly being reviewed by supervisors and hiring managers along with the rest of the general public. Therefore, people are advised to not share the same information online that they would in an intimate setting with friends and family.If people know, and feel that they are being monitored that prevents them from trying to do any wrond doing which could harm any indiviuals.

Your digital identity is created online by what you do, or say, online for others to see. So by putting yourself out there for the world to see is like opening the door for people to acess everthing about you. Johari Window created a 2x2 matrix to explain what information is known about you to you and/or others. The Arena describes the information that you and others know about each other while the Unknown describes the information that you and others do not know about you on the internet. There is also the facade, which describes the information that you know but do not what to share with others, while the Blind Spot explains information that you don't know about your own digital identity which others know <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>.

Online identity is a rhetorical term itself because to be online means to be recognized by and connected to a server. Hence, for in order to be recognized one is also synonymously identified. Once one ventures on the internet on immediately gains as online identity. Now what create the difference in the types of identities are its usage purposes. The internet is by design, a communication interface where one is giving or exchanging information. The giving and receiving of information can also be considered rhetorical because no answer is required.

Every individual who uses the internet has an online identity. Whether that said individual uses the internet to post on social networking sites, search topics of interest, or to read the news; all of the information that they associate with contributes to their identity. Sometimes, individuals use means within their reach to create a false identity, i.e. setting up a fake account. More often however, individuals er on the side of caution and tend to form their identity in the best light possible. They do this by overestimating their achievements and underestimating their failures. The perception of themselves that is shared with others online is fragmented, meaning that it is missing sometimes often critical components of who a person is or what they believe. Even before social networking took over the internet, indivdiuals presented only materials that they knew about themselves and were willing to share with the general public. In that respect, not much has changed. Except that now indivdiuals should be more aware of the material that they contribute to online, since it is more difficult to erase. <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

=== Community ===

According to Warner, "a public is a social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse"(90). "No single text can create a public. Nor can a single voice, a single genre, even a single medium. All are insufficient to create the kind of reflexivity that we call a public, since a public is understood to be an ongoing space of encounter for discourse" <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>. In other words, a public is a space where people can come together for discourse. In the case of satire, writers come together to produce something that is subversive but still humorous. Philosopher Benjamin Barber had a different view when defining the public. Barber saw the public as a people coming together because of their shared discourse, not to create/collaborate <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

Publics tend to mobolize others to action because writing, speaking, blogging requires indvidiuals to engage in a much larger network. The idea of a public tends to put pressure on a writer, by suggesting that his argument must be framed for a particular audience who have similar or dissimmilar viewpoints; this is dependent upon the goal of the written work. Social constraints also act to play a role in determining the dynamic between the public. Exploring mutuality may create a sense of "we" but also has the danger to create an "us" against "them mentality". <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

According to Fraser a singular public sphere can never adequately represent all factions within a stratified society, meaning that it has always been essential for subaltern groups to form their own counterpublic spheres <ref>Day 132</ref>. She stresses that these smaller publics are not inevitably about separatism; rather, they function as "bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics" <ref>Day 132</ref>.

Counterpublics exist to combat another public. Day uses Michael Warner's definition: [counterpublics are] "those publics constituted through a conflictual relation to the dominant, . . . [and] somehow subordinate to the prevailing culture."<ref>Day 132</ref> An interesting and important qualification, however, is that counterpublics need not necessarily consist of "otherwise marginalized individuals," since the ''issue'', and not the ''person'', is subordinate to the larger public.<ref>Day 132</ref>

A "public" is a group a people that share similar ideas and form a group to convey their ideas to the world. Counterpublics are publics formed to disband or argue against a certain public formed on an idea that the counterpublic does not agree with. Because of the scenario in which a counterpublic is formed, counterpublics cannot be of existence if its adverse public does not exist<ref>week4</ref>.

The meaning behind "The Public" is to be part of a group that is most comfortable speaking directly and for whom the ideal realtionship among is one of efficiency. Another model for a ''public'' focuses on the more traditional medium of ''writing'', as Phyllis Ryder says in her article: "As David Bartholomae and Joseph Harris have long argued that academics are inherently intertextual creatures, so Warner argues that the publics, too, are constituted by the circulation of texts."<ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

With rhetorical commnity it is seen as any group involved in using language to persuade or convince. Such as lawmakers, politcians, stockbrokers, etc. they could be thought as separate communities within society that skilled in using rhetoric<ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_rhetorical_community</ref>.

rhetorical communities are not a single unified whole but a mix of numerous limited or local communities and of individuals who typically participate in not one but several of these communities.</ref>http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Publications/Texts/rhetoric.html

A rhetorical community builds the creation of public interest, common goods, and active citizens <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

A public is a group of people that perform in a similar way. It is a group of people that have similar ideas or goals <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

According to Simon Clark, the best way to create a community is to bond people together by means of a special event or a shared interest (i.e. movie night in your local neighborhood). The importance of creating a community is to not be discouraged by a lack of commitment on the part of others. Stepping out of your comfort zone will allow you to meet people who share the same ideas and goals as you. The point of a community is to bring together people with a common knowledge in which they can share and express their interests among those who they are well acquainted with. <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

Moreover, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. This can be an online peer group <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Also, an insert needs to be set up, and everyone in the neighborhood needs to sign up <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>.

Richard Millington states that in order to create a good community online you need four steps. The First is to find a metric to measure the success of the community. The second step is to Identify who your first members will be, while doing so you should establish what issues will be discussed and what source of technology will be used and how. After that identifying what type of online community it is and what the big appeal is will be essential to making the community work. Last but not least after all these steps are covered the final step is to launch the community and to devise strategies in order to keep growing. <ref>http://www.feverbee.com/2008/12/how-do-you-build-an-online-community.html</ref>. Being able to follow these steps, while grow a positive and uplifting community will benefit your community in many ways.

Meanwhile, the enabling technologies are based on the internet <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Finally, the web has changed communities."Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through AdSense" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "eBay solved the prisoner's dilemma" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia with a million and a half articles in two hundred languages" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

The web has allowed the communication between the people inside the communities to live a safer life in the sense that it allows those people to keep contact with one another if there might an issue or problem in their community. Such as twitter, facebook, and etc allows parents and kids stay involved with what might be going on in their very own back yards. Having twitter and facebook allows communities to be formed in a online perpective. Having eye and ears in the streets, and communicating online allows people to keep their homes safe.

Howard Rheingold emphasizes the world of collaboration, collaborative life. Simon Clark states, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Both Rheingold and Clarks information connect; the world of collaboration means a group of people are involved in something. Clark covered that a movie night would be an eventful night for a community of people (pick a night and make sure everyone knows about it). This illustrates the power of collaboration made possible through digital media. Rheingold talked about (in 2005) a coming world of “collaboration, participatory media, and collective action,” and certainly Wikipedia has achieved his model on a global level. He observed that every computer is a printing press, a broadcast booth, and a marketplace. The infrastructure is there, he argued, thus he urged communities to “get the cooperation project started.”<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>

An overview/recap of all the videos: Howard Rheingold talks about “Wikipedia and how it affects the natural instinct of the human people” <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. . Wikipedia is not there to compete but for people to come together to work on a common project. Craig Newmark says relates a community with transparency and accountability, people need to be able to see what/why your doing it and be accountable for it. Simon Clark states “you need to come together, with a common and shared experience comes a healthy community” <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. The idea that it is possible to create a community even though there is still a lack of transparency or collaboration but at the same time we could still bring those together and build a community.

Clark's vision shows collaboration and partnership not limited to the digital sphere, as he demonstrates by his organizing of weekly, casual cookouts in his small neighborhood. He reminds us that traditional reality should not be overlooked in lieu of modern cyberspace. As the world moves further and further toward digital communities, it is helpful to remember that we ourselves are physical beings living in physical space, that communities need not be digital to be relevant.<ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

When it comes to personal identity, is there really a real you? This idea of personal identity is closely tied to communities; your actions of personal identity will affect the community. The connection between community and satire can be knowing the audience and as well as the responses. Can satire provide transparency, accountability, or a shared experience? Publics are by a common text, not just a word document or book but an experience. Collaboration, shared experience, transparency or accountability is ways we can try to create communities.

Communities form through four ideas; collaboration, shared experience, transparency, and accountability. People need to have a shared representation of what their community stands for while everyone included in the community needs to know what is going on in their community and account for what the community is doing as a whole <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Community specific irony can function in an elitest manner. This creates a form of competency and knowledge that goes hand in hand with economic competency. While online communities have learned much from education and exposure they also acknoweldge that in becoming so, online communities trade a form of distinction for a more public and general coomunity. Developments in technology have made it easier to pick up and take apart media around us, individuals have a new forum upon which hey can enter into public discussion, free from mainstream media. These new technologies link average citizens, professionals, and activists to exchange in discourse that may have not been available in any other form. <ref> Day, 40-42 </ref>

=== Institutions ===

"The remix becomes an act of social creativity."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "It potentially changes the way we relate to each other."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "All of our normal social interactions become an invitation to collective expression."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> It's our real social lives that are transformed into art.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

The remix refers to individuals who use shared culture as a kind of language to communicate something to an audience. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Also, the social remix is used to mediate people's relationships with each other.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Lawrence Lessig shows how Republicans have been more open to creative sharing than Democrats, owing he argues to Republicans' shared ideology that separates out the creative potential of the individual from the collective corporatist structure, thus having more of a respect for creators' rights to ''remix'' a copyrighted endeavor for the collective good.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

A remix can be used in satire to more accurately "mock" an idea or subject that the satire is trying to explain. A remix is modified versions of an earlier idea<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>. The term remix is used when a creator uses what the past creators has provided to create new, innovative ideas<ref>http://www.ehow.com/about_6534470_remix-vs_-plagiarism-films.html</ref>. The satire in remixing always seemed to be funny a good example is the clip of our former president George W.Bush<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEbZqvMu2cQ&feature=related</ref>.

Coorination costs are the financial difficulties in arranging group output. if you want to coordinate the work of people you create an institution which brings resources together and coordinate the activity of the groups. Cooperation needs to be put into the infastructure without regard to institutional models. There are a large number of people on the internet, but not everyone has what you need to create an infastructure. You need to draw them in to create a way to make an institution to meet a certain goal. This creates a need for management and structure (economic, physical, legal), as well as breaking down exlcusionary matters. Essentially, in creating cooperation into infastructure to create institutions, closed groups and companies will give way to looser networks where small contributors have big roles and fluid cooperation replaces rigid planning. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref>

According to Howard Rheingold, we live a collaborative life. For Example: Wikipedia is a natural instinct of people working as a group. Wikipedia is not there to compete but people coming together to work on a common project. The print press came along within decades and millions of people became literate, new forms of collective actions emerged within the spheres of knowledge, religion, politics, and wealth.

Publics and counterpublics, mentioned above, are fast becoming institutions in and of themselves. Seth Godwin argues that the old ideas of ''tribalism'' have reemerged during the digital era, resulting in more diversity of thought and action than what was assumed would be the case with our modern hyper-connectivity. Now, fringe individuals who were before powerless to advance their ideas, can join with like minds through a variety of social networking options thus leveraging their effectiveness in the marketplace of ideas. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead.html</ref>

=== Audience ===

A rhetorical situation can act as as a natural context of persons, events, objects, and relations which strongly invites utterance. This therefore occurs naturally in the rhetorical situation, and is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity. This helps to define rhetorical character of which the three requirements of audience, constraints, and exigence are necessarily important for rhetorical discourse. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

The audience has the ability to set the discourse, to focus on cues from the writer. Therefore, the audience has assumed power in that it is regarded as having attitudes, beliefs, and expectations that are known to the writer. Even though writers feel that they can never truly know their audience but can invoke emotion from them, or create an image for themlittle guidence when it comes to his readers.Not knowing your audience is a common struggle for writers, but being able to create the same image that you see when ou write make it easier.However, this model seems to put more emphasis on the writer than on the discourse or the dynamic between the writer and audience that acts to facilitate a rhetorical situation. The appropriate rhetorical situation has a balance of creativity from the writer and the creativity of the reader. By understanding the needs of an audience, and whether that audience is addressed (assumed) or invoked (imagined), a communicator has a better chance of reaching that audience.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

An audience is (universal/particular -- those capable of being influenced and those capable of influencing) <ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref> Lloyd F. Bitzer defines ''rhetorical situation'' as "a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance."<ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Thus defined, since such a confluence of parts is naturally changing, an effective speaker should recognize and adapt to these changes in order to effectively reach that audience.

An audience is the group of people that a rhetorical writer and/or speaker is trying to persuade into the beliefs of what that rhetoric writer wants to the audience to realize<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> Even though the writer has no control over who reads what pieces of literature, the writer atleast tries to lead certain readers to his or her works.

"There are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience."<ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref>
Discourse is Situated: 1) For audience, possibly pairing with content course 2) against hypothetical or physical audience and instead focuses on "cues" that writers use.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> But Ede and Lunsford state that this oversimplifies the complexities of audience in the rhetorical situation. <ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

There is an indefinite amount of information for the rhetor to choose from in a situation. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Meaning that the rhetor can select the information he or she feels is relevant to the argument they are making in their satire. This view is opposite of Lloyd F. Bitzer's, who defines a rhetorical situation as "natural and objective." <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> However, if rhetorical situations were objective, then there would not be much room for discourse let alone satire. Richard E. Vatz makes the same argument against Bitzer in the following article. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

Fears about privacy come with new technology. We have new tools that enable us to do so much. If all we do is pay attention to is privacy, we loose publicness. You can get great benefit from sharing. Others may similarly benefit from what you have to contribute. Often it can be seen as selfish to hold back. In addressing policy, it is critical to understand your risks and goals when assessing how much information to share with the public. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

We may look more deeply into our audience in building our message. As Vatz makes the point, How the rhetor interprets events plays a huge part in creating meaning, and doesn’t create a set rhetorical response to an exigence; thus, Vatz feels he is putting more responsibility on the rhetor: “the rhetor is responsible for what he [sic] chooses to make salient” (168).

Class Debate: Satire is serious. It informs people who are apathetic by entertainment. Satirical news can be more entertaining than the regular news. Satire is arguably better than the regular news because it is straight forward with no intentions of hurting feelings and not being afraid of peoples’ reactions. These commentators make it so that one can understand the issue at hand. The introduction of satire is so attention grabbing it gets you into the news. Satire still gets the current event point across while showing flaws in people/groups. This news brings in a different audience, young ones who do not watch the news. Satire is still funny but at the same time plays a serious role.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tribes and Attention

"Publicness" is about organizing movements or clubs. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

If all we do is pay attention to privacy, then we may lose the opportunities and benefits of publicness. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html</ref>

Satire and Tradition

Video and digital technologies make it relatively easy and inexpensive for the staff of ''The Daily Show'', to obtain and edit the day's newsclips.<ref>Day 54</ref> And, as John Caldwell points out, "By 2000, widespread use of digital servers (allowing random and multiple access to image and sound) made the task of finding and incorporating archived file footage far less daunting." <ref>Day 54</ref>

Online satire have a more developed incorporation of the real into the mimetic. The form has moved and increasingly blurred the line between news and entertainment, satirizing real news footage as it unfolds and ambushing and interviewing real political leaders. This has only led to the popularity of video and digital satire. <ref> Day, 57 </ref>

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. Lawrence Lessig talks about taking songs and remixing them to make something different <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref>.

Fair use is the right, in some circumstances, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying for it. Fair use enables the creation of new culture, and keeps current copyright holders from being private censors <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

=== Open Source ===

The public domain is the commons of information where nothing is owned and all is permitted <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>.

The acronym "API" stands for Application Programming Interface <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire is an open source application.

Essentially, an open API is something that can be modified<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire uses other ideas and "modifies" them, so the API for satire would be the "program" that satire is using to create its own idea of the same program. ''Open source satire'' relies on the creative works of others in remixing the work to convert it to satire. An example would be when a satirist takes a real news story and converts it to satire. This act of modifying an original source is legally predicated on the original source being ''open source'', or, in other words, not protected by copyright.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>

Because of the open source model which has encouraged the creativity in software since it allows others to modify its function with a potential for unlimited improvement. Mozilla Firefox internet browser is an example of open source software, and the marketplace ultimately determines if the product is successful. Open API, on the other hand, is only open in the sense that others can view the source programming: Twitter and Facebook work like this, where the source code is used to coordinate with other websites and applications. An important distinction between Open Source and Open API is that the former allows users to modify the source code itself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref> Because of "open source" which allows one to make changes it is sometimes seen as more easier to deal with and handle the API where you can only see but there can not be any changes made.

The Creative Commons is kind of like open source and having an API.

''Remixing'' recreates, using digital technologies, existing content into something new that is then added to our culture.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref> The remixed creation relies on existing content being available to the remixers. Fair Use statutes govern this process, thereby either encouraging or stifling this creative process. Many believe existing copyright law does not adequately address the best model for an increasingly digitalized 21st century and that change is needed in the form of new law. Others, like Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, believe existing copyright and fair use law have been misinterpreted and misappropriated to serve only large commercial interests. Their book ''Reclaiming Fair Use'' argues that "fair use" is often misunderstood; they challenge the "widely held notion that current copyright law has become unworkable and obsolete in the era of digital technologies," thereby hoping to "reshape the debate in both scholarly circles and the creative community." <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/reclaiming</ref>

You cannot transmit what you know under a certain set of circumstances. The effect includes open source software, critical in web based communications. Most intellect is produced in this form to capture a component of the net. Software has done this in a way that is very visible because it is measurable. NASA did an experiment where they took images of Mars, and instead of having multiple Ph.d.s working all the time, they put images on the web. Now many people use it to map, which is indestinguishable from those made by individuals with a P.h.d.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html</ref>

A remix is a creation of an idea that bases its own idea from a source from past ideas. Remixing can be dangerous if the creator of the remix does not follow the copyright laws that are put in place to protect an individuals idea from being copied<ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

Remix culture is a term used to describe a society which allows and encourages derivative works. Remix is defined as combining or editing existing materials to produce a new product. A Remix Culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the work of copyright holders. <ref>http://www.everythingisaremix.info/</ref>

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. In a new media context, a remix is the combination of two different pieces of media to form a new piece of media. For example, a voiceover and Hollywood movie can be remixed together to form a new video. Remix works best when the source materials are totally different from each other, like Romantic Comedies vs. Biblical Dramas, or when they comment on or critique the other. <ref>http://popculturepirate.com/2011/09/23/what-is-a-remix-exactly/</ref>

=== Memes ===

A meme is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." <ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme</ref>. The word "meme" is derived from the greek word "mimeme" which means "something imitated" and was coined for its modern definition by British biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 for his idea on evolutionary processes for explaining how ideas and culture spread as a natural process of communicating <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=YphlBwpbJCUC&pg=PA16</ref>. The theory of evolution applied to memes as noted by Dawkins says that memes either evolve and adapt with their shared meaning or they die out and become extinct. We can see this in our modern use of memes as they come and go.

A meme typically raises questions of justice and fairness and is built by remixing an existing idea. In visual form, the existing idea often represents a public while the meme represents a counterpublic. Memes sometimes, however, function only to relay humor as in the case of “Success Kid,” <ref>http://memegenerator.net/Success-Kid</ref> who argues ''anything'' or ''nothing'' depending on the user added content superimposed onto his fabric. Humor-only memes are little more than a condensed joke, but social-activist memes can be powerful agents of change. Additionally, a broader movement like Occupy Wall Street <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref> can also be considered a meme when this visual fabric idea is extrapolated to represent specific ideas superimposed upon broader ones. OWS demonstrations vary widely on the specific minor goal, vehicle, or agency, but the underlying fabric (the meme fabric) is the broader idea that 99% of citizens should have more influence than the 1% who currently control American government. As long as the specific goal is in concert with the broader one, the OWS movement has unity in direction. In this way, OWS can be compared to general “Success Kid” who is set by users into a variety of specific contexts. By contrast, the visual framework of “Success Kid” is more discrete in this application and generally represents what most consider being a ''meme''.

Occupy Wall Street was, essentially, a type of meme. Memes are expressions used to portray an idea or belief to prove a point. In the Occupy Wall Street, people were expressing their ideas to help prove a point to what they were demanding <ref>Week 5</ref>. Even though sometimes the point that you are trying to get across is not seen, meme leave powerful statements.

The Arab Spring brought down cruel dictatorships and brought in freedom, democracy and change from existing political and economic systems <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref>.

Susan Blackmore argues that humanity has spawned a new kind of meme. She says the new form of meme is spread by the technology that we've created <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>.

What makes a meme is not specifically the picture or idea that is repeatedly used, but the variety of ways that the same picture or idea is manipulated to express ideas of the certain creator<ref>http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/how-to-explain-what-a-meme-is-in-one-image</ref> The way that meme is expressed by different people is unique, and can different in the way that meme can never be seen as dull but rather spontaneous.

Phil T. Rich argues that "memes are media viruses that spread throughout the population. Urban legends, fleeting fashions, and idiotic ad slogans that work their way into everyday conversations are memes <ref>Day 165</ref>. Moreover, memes can be used as a culture of resistance" <ref>Day 166</ref>

Meme have allowed people to express themselves, and their viewpoint in ways that usually they could not. With meme people with have that tool to express their thoughts and ideas to the world.

Susan Blackmore describes how ''mimetics'' (the working of memes) operates like a virus or a progression of an idea after the Darwinian evolutionary model, where design comes forth out of chaos. "Going viral" happens when an idea spreads like a virus, mutating as it goes. Certain viruses are clearly more contagious than others, and the marketplace of ideas dictates a particular idea's status in the digital world. The digital public decides what goes viral by their decision whether to forward an idea, meme, or viral concept. She coins the term ''teme'' as being a technologically themed meme. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>

An interesting concept called ''countermeme'' was illustrated by Mike Godwin who postulated that the longer an internet discussion continues, the probability that someone mentions ''Hitler'' or ''Nazi'', etc., moves closer to 1. Subsequent citing of "Godwin's Law" to combat this argumentative tactic has found its way into a surprising number of discussion threads on various topics, effectively becoming a countermeme.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html</ref>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satire is used to go against power and oppression.

Satire is verbal aggression of some aspect being exposed to ridicule.

=References=
<references/>

Digital Satire

2012-07-26T15:18:32Z

Jeff: /* Identity vs. Privacy */ fixed the </ref> tag

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion consisting of various methods used in attempting to persuade an audience.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric</ref> A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref> Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively. It is essential to understand how to use logos, pathos, and ethos in order to effectively persuade your audience. There are five cannons of rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Using the five canons of rhetoric you can build an effective argument.

Rhetoric aims to improve speech skills by improving the way a speaker of a specialized audience speaks to his or her audience<ref>day1</ref>.

=== Satire ===

Satire being a more literary genre which is seen to use more of a sense of criticism towards a specific person or group<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms.

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant" (Frye) - but parody, and burlesque are frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satire is used to make a mockery of an individual or group that has failed to act as the followers of the individual or group wanted them to. Satire is usually applied to a subject where the failed individual or group has failed in<ref>day1</ref>.

Satirical works often contain "straight" humour. Laughter is not an essential component of satire,(Corum 175) as in spectrum of satire there are types that are not meant to arise laughter and be "funny".

Conversely, not all humour is necessarily "satirical", even on such topics as politics, religion or art, or even when it uses the satirical tools of irony, parody, and burlesque <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Satirical playwright Dario Fo pointed out the difference between satire and teasing. Teasing is the reactionary side of the comic, it limits itself to a shallow parody of physical appearance. Satire instead uses the comic to go against power and its oppressions, has a subversive character, and a moral dimension which draws judgement against its targets <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Teasing is an ancient form of simple buffoonery, a form of comedy without satire's subversive edge. Teasing includes light and affectionate parody, good-humoured mockery, simple one-dimensional poking fun, benign spoofs. Teasing typically consists in a impersonation of someone monkeying around with his exterior attributes, tics, physical blemishes, voice and mannerisms, quirks, way of dressing and walking, the phrases he typically repeats. By contrast, teasing never touches on the core issue, never makes a serious criticism judging the target with irony; it never harms the target's conduct, ideology and position of power; it never undermines the perception of his morality and cultural dimension <ref><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire</ref>.

Critics tend to see irony, parody, and satire as diminishing meaning (by belittling the subject), but as Harold Bloom reminds us, the great ironists such as Shakespeare tended to expand meaning (13). Satire is provocative, not dismissive - a crucial point that critics typically ignore when assessing its role in public discourse <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>.

Test argues that play and laughter constitute and define all satiric undertakings and distinguish it from other forms of aesthetic expression with which it is sometimes confused with "humor, comedy, social criticism, parody, burlesque, farce and travesty"(13).

Again, there has been some controversy over whether laughter is a necessary component or distinguishing feature of satire. Laughter is ultimately something satire may or may not produce within the audience. It is not something that resides in the artistic expression itself. Satire does not need to be funny. <ref><https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg</ref>.

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions <ref>http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/E/enthymeme.htm</ref>.The meaning of enthymemes has to do with an unanswered statement which is made by a person, which allows someone to find the conclusion of the statement on their own by being able to understand the statement <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme</ref>. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. A skillful use of satire can engage the audience in a more constructive way by appealing to its imagination as well as engaging the intellect <ref> http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0</ref>Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is looked to, for its ability to unmask and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy <Ref>Day 12</Ref>.The image of physically unveiling something or someone is one that recurs again and again in discussions of satire<Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.12</ref>. Also, satire has been feared and banned because it is seen as a powerful force (Feinberg)<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf</ref>. I would even argue that contemporary, mediatized political satire is being mobilized in a fairly populist register, as seemingly average Joes attempt to take down the mighty <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' p.9</ref>.
Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of Jon Stewart <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE</ref> and Stephen Colbert <ref>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879</ref>, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

According to Hutcheon <ref>Day 12</ref> a more idealistic view holds that satire and irony have "the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very 'sites' of discourse." Also, Lillian and Edward Bloom go on to explain, that satire ultimately has little political effect because it does not in itself initiate change and, in fact, rarely encourages it <ref>Day 12</ref>.

Satire can play a big role in public debate. There are bloggers that post ideas anonymously on the internet, and there are people that challenge those in power <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.
Also, certain tools lend themselves more fully to digital satire to give back to society. The internet is a good tool based on the fact that anyone can use it <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html</ref>.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse <Ref>Day, Amber. ''Satire and Dissent'' (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011), pp. 11-13.</Ref>. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" <Ref>Day 21</Ref>. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.
3.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

Having the identity as being "anonymous" is seen for people who want to keep their information that they post private, or they could be scared about the backlash of any comments that might be made.But for you to create an identity online you might create a blog, or twitter, or have facebook to have yoourself know for the digital world.

For satire to be effective, it must be sincere at the core, it must allow others to build an understanding between the idea of satire and its viewpoint.Day argues that ''ironic authenticity'' is to satire what ''credibility'' is to traditional argumentation. Just because satire is comedic does not mean it is not at the same time serious; and since satire is becoming increasingly popular, she asserts, "for many, irony is becoming a new marker of sincerity."<ref>Day 42</ref>

Digital Satire allows collaboration through social networks, with the result being potentially better than a smaller team. This vastly more unlimited vehicle takes advantage of more creative talents at work on a project, and at the same time overthrows the need for an institutionalized structure traditionally required for such collaboration, as Clay Shirky points out."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref> Digital satire created in this way becomes the product of a group effort that potentially maximizes its value in the social marketplace of ideas. The value of Digital Satire will allow certain product in the digital world to made an impact to the world.

Satire puts more action rather than factual information to the news. The news is used to give factual information and NOT persuade anyone with the information given while digital satire uses the news and rhetoric techniques to influence and persuade its audience of a factual information being , blatantly put, "stupid<ref>day4week4</ref>."

When satire derives from news which is originally or secondarily hosted online, they involve far fewer impersonations, sketches based around politician's personal foibles, and entirely made-up news items. Instead, they rely heavily on deconstructions of real news events, as well as interviews or ambushes of actual public figures, blending the mimetic and the real. They tread a much finer line between news and entertainmen, satire and political argument. This has thrust these programs into serious public debate and creating much cultural anxiety. <ref>Day, 43</ref>

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity vs. Privacy ===

Danah Boyd looks at the changing faces of “Networked Privacy,” asserting that U.S. privacy laws of the 1970s are not applicable in 2010 and furthermore that there is no current agreement on “what privacy is, or what it means to actually protect it in the first place.” She points to a mother who created a public webpage of her family’s genealogy that included maiden names, the most common internet security question, as an example of the conflict between the desire for social connectedness and privacy.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>

Some argue that the internet’s public nature must be preserved if it is to act as a medium to enact popular goals. Jillian York talks about how internet connectivity is a major force for public activism, agreeing with blogger Andrew Trench’s estimate that if the 2011 struggles in “Egypt and Tunisia are valid case studies, it looks like internet penetration of around 20%” is the threshold for effective mobilization of ground-level activism.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>

When we interact in a physical environment our conversations are private by default until we go out of our way to make it very public <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Also, online privacy is public by default and private through effort <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>.

Privacy isn't about restricting access to information, it's about having that moment of control and agency <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Agency should not be taken away, because then people can't achieve privacy.

Danah Boyd asked, “How do you protect privacy?” <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref> Public internet is one of the main catalysts in the advancement of the technological era. The internet is the foundation of so many new age markets that its existences are vital. But in saying that nothing on the internet is 100% secure. There are so many potential hazardous users that even those things intended for privacy can be accessed. The right training in the wrong hands could decode any encryption. The YouTube video made the connection that privacy has this individual centric nature and stated, “sharing to be seen but trying to protect themselves to not be seen by certain people” relating to the regulation of the individuals of children. I would make the argument there is no such thing as private internet, the term is a paradox in itself which is globally interconnected can’t be private.

Privacy is the act of controlling what you do or say to others rather than the restriction of information from others. We control how private we want to be by not putting those images you wanted to put up on Facebook <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. The internet has become to public and needs to find some sense of privacy. Users of the internet decide to make whatever they place on the internet public for anyone to see <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be</ref>. Privacy today, and privacy 10 years ago has changed in the sense that you can go online and figure out how to hack into someones computer and find their information thanks to the help of the internet.

Many people take the argument that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," which is a common argument in favor of a lack of privacy when it comes to matters of security. However, debate surrounding less devistating or incriminating evidence is much more heated. Privacy encompasses many ideas and it is therefore rather a combination of acts rather than one. The nothing to hide argument however is based on an underlying premise that assumes that what one wants to hide is bad, which is not always the case. In any ineraction it is impossible to keep things completely private, especially once global media is encorporated. <ref>http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/</ref>

Meanwhile, digital access is the internet, the computer, and mobile access <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be</ref>.

Next, there are millions of individuals making their own videos for web distribution <ref>Day 25</ref>. These are created at every level of production quality, from shaky camera-phone footage to sophisticated animation <ref>Day 25</ref>. Any indiviual these days can post a video of anything whether their intention is to help or harm you.Being able to block, or track indiviuals who post violent or harmful videos will help people who have been harmed by the hateful video post.

Also, sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet are used to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity <ref>http://personas.media.mit.edu/</ref>.

Meanwhile, our digital identities are entities that need to be managed, so what appears online tends to be a highly sanitized version of us <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>. Danah Boyle talks about the issue of digital identity <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>; she says: “in any given situation, an individual presents a face, which is the social presentation of one facet of their identity."

Moreover, a digital identity is created through the use of various social media outlets, the most popular being Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. One can also create a digital identity linked to their name if they comment or subscribe to a forum. According to an article by Naumi Haque, a great deal of contrast often exists between our real personalities and our digital identities. Since this is almost always the case, is our so-called digital identity really an identity, or is it more of a digital fingerprint of our true identity? Haque thinks that for now at least the fingerprint metaphor is probably more accurate; but as technology increases, he sees a day when even things we don't know about ourselves will be obvious to our digital selves.<ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

The reason being we're constantly being monitored; our online social presence is constantly being reviewed by supervisors and hiring managers along with the rest of the general public. Therefore, people are advised to not share the same information online that they would in an intimate setting with friends and family.If people know, and feel that they are being monitored that prevents them from trying to do any wrond doing which could harm any indiviuals.

Your digital identity is created online by what you do, or say, online for others to see. So by putting yourself out there for the world to see is like opening the door for people to acess everthing about you. Johari Window created a 2x2 matrix to explain what information is known about you to you and/or others. The Arena describes the information that you and others know about each other while the Unknown describes the information that you and others do not know about you on the internet. There is also the facade, which describes the information that you know but do not what to share with others, while the Blind Spot explains information that you don't know about your own digital identity which others know <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>.

Online identity is a rhetorical term itself because to be online means to be recognized by and connected to a server. Hence, for in order to be recognized one is also synonymously identified. Once one ventures on the internet on immediately gains as online identity. Now what create the difference in the types of identities are its usage purposes. The internet is by design, a communication interface where one is giving or exchanging information. The giving and receiving of information can also be considered rhetorical because no answer is required.

Every individual who uses the internet has an online identity. Whether that said individual uses the internet to post on social networking sites, search topics of interest, or to read the news; all of the information that they associate with contributes to their identity. Sometimes, individuals use means within their reach to create a false identity, i.e. setting up a fake account. More often however, individuals er on the side of caution and tend to form their identity in the best light possible. They do this by overestimating their achievements and underestimating their failures. The perception of themselves that is shared with others online is fragmented, meaning that it is missing sometimes often critical components of who a person is or what they believe. Even before social networking took over the internet, indivdiuals presented only materials that they knew about themselves and were willing to share with the general public. In that respect, not much has changed. Except that now indivdiuals should be more aware of the material that they contribute to online, since it is more difficult to erase. <ref>http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/</ref>

=== Community ===

According to Warner, "a public is a social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse"(90). "No single text can create a public. Nor can a single voice, a single genre, even a single medium. All are insufficient to create the kind of reflexivity that we call a public, since a public is understood to be an ongoing space of encounter for discourse" <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>. In other words, a public is a space where people can come together for discourse. In the case of satire, writers come together to produce something that is subversive but still humorous. Philosopher Benjamin Barber had a different view when defining the public. Barber saw the public as a people coming together because of their shared discourse, not to create/collaborate <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

Publics tend to mobolize others to action because writing, speaking, blogging requires indvidiuals to engage in a much larger network. The idea of a public tends to put pressure on a writer, by suggesting that his argument must be framed for a particular audience who have similar or dissimmilar viewpoints; this is dependent upon the goal of the written work. Social constraints also act to play a role in determining the dynamic between the public. Exploring mutuality may create a sense of "we" but also has the danger to create an "us" against "them mentality". <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

According to Fraser a singular public sphere can never adequately represent all factions within a stratified society, meaning that it has always been essential for subaltern groups to form their own counterpublic spheres <ref>Day 132</ref>. She stresses that these smaller publics are not inevitably about separatism; rather, they function as "bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics" <ref>Day 132</ref>.

Counterpublics exist to combat another public. Day uses Michael Warner's definition: [counterpublics are] "those publics constituted through a conflictual relation to the dominant, . . . [and] somehow subordinate to the prevailing culture."<ref>Day 132</ref> An interesting and important qualification, however, is that counterpublics need not necessarily consist of "otherwise marginalized individuals," since the ''issue'', and not the ''person'', is subordinate to the larger public.<ref>Day 132</ref>

A "public" is a group a people that share similar ideas and form a group to convey their ideas to the world. Counterpublics are publics formed to disband or argue against a certain public formed on an idea that the counterpublic does not agree with. Because of the scenario in which a counterpublic is formed, counterpublics cannot be of existence if its adverse public does not exist<ref>week4</ref>.

The meaning behind "The Public" is to be part of a group that is most comfortable speaking directly and for whom the ideal realtionship among is one of efficiency. Another model for a ''public'' focuses on the more traditional medium of ''writing'', as Phyllis Ryder says in her article: "As David Bartholomae and Joseph Harris have long argued that academics are inherently intertextual creatures, so Warner argues that the publics, too, are constituted by the circulation of texts."<ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>

With rhetorical commnity it is seen as any group involved in using language to persuade or convince. Such as lawmakers, politcians, stockbrokers, etc. they could be thought as separate communities within society that skilled in using rhetoric<ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_rhetorical_community</ref>.

rhetorical communities are not a single unified whole but a mix of numerous limited or local communities and of individuals who typically participate in not one but several of these communities.</ref>http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Publications/Texts/rhetoric.html

A rhetorical community builds the creation of public interest, common goods, and active citizens <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

A public is a group of people that perform in a similar way. It is a group of people that have similar ideas or goals <ref>http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder</ref>.

According to Simon Clark, the best way to create a community is to bond people together by means of a special event or a shared interest (i.e. movie night in your local neighborhood). The importance of creating a community is to not be discouraged by a lack of commitment on the part of others. Stepping out of your comfort zone will allow you to meet people who share the same ideas and goals as you. The point of a community is to bring together people with a common knowledge in which they can share and express their interests among those who they are well acquainted with. <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

Moreover, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. This can be an online peer group <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Also, an insert needs to be set up, and everyone in the neighborhood needs to sign up <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>.

Richard Millington states that in order to create a good community online you need four steps. The First is to find a metric to measure the success of the community. The second step is to Identify who your first members will be, while doing so you should establish what issues will be discussed and what source of technology will be used and how. After that identifying what type of online community it is and what the big appeal is will be essential to making the community work. Last but not least after all these steps are covered the final step is to launch the community and to devise strategies in order to keep growing. <ref>http://www.feverbee.com/2008/12/how-do-you-build-an-online-community.html</ref>. Being able to follow these steps, while grow a positive and uplifting community will benefit your community in many ways.

Meanwhile, the enabling technologies are based on the internet <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Finally, the web has changed communities."Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through AdSense" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "eBay solved the prisoner's dilemma" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. "Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia with a million and a half articles in two hundred languages" <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Howard Rheingold emphasizes the world of collaboration, collaborative life. Simon Clark states, "every community needs a focus" <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. Both Rheingold and Clarks information connect; the world of collaboration means a group of people are involved in something. Clark covered that a movie night would be an eventful night for a community of people (pick a night and make sure everyone knows about it). This illustrates the power of collaboration made possible through digital media. Rheingold talked about (in 2005) a coming world of “collaboration, participatory media, and collective action,” and certainly Wikipedia has achieved his model on a global level. He observed that every computer is a printing press, a broadcast booth, and a marketplace. The infrastructure is there, he argued, thus he urged communities to “get the cooperation project started.”<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>

An overview/recap of all the videos: Howard Rheingold talks about “Wikipedia and how it affects the natural instinct of the human people” <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>. . Wikipedia is not there to compete but for people to come together to work on a common project. Craig Newmark says relates a community with transparency and accountability, people need to be able to see what/why your doing it and be accountable for it. Simon Clark states “you need to come together, with a common and shared experience comes a healthy community” <ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>. The idea that it is possible to create a community even though there is still a lack of transparency or collaboration but at the same time we could still bring those together and build a community.

Clark's vision shows collaboration and partnership not limited to the digital sphere, as he demonstrates by his organizing of weekly, casual cookouts in his small neighborhood. He reminds us that traditional reality should not be overlooked in lieu of modern cyberspace. As the world moves further and further toward digital communities, it is helpful to remember that we ourselves are physical beings living in physical space, that communities need not be digital to be relevant.<ref>http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community</ref>

When it comes to personal identity, is there really a real you? This idea of personal identity is closely tied to communities; your actions of personal identity will affect the community. The connection between community and satire can be knowing the audience and as well as the responses. Can satire provide transparency, accountability, or a shared experience? Publics are by a common text, not just a word document or book but an experience. Collaboration, shared experience, transparency or accountability is ways we can try to create communities.

Communities form through four ideas; collaboration, shared experience, transparency, and accountability. People need to have a shared representation of what their community stands for while everyone included in the community needs to know what is going on in their community and account for what the community is doing as a whole <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html</ref>.

Community specific irony can function in an elitest manner. This creates a form of competency and knowledge that goes hand in hand with economic competency. While online communities have learned much from education and exposure they also acknoweldge that in becoming so, online communities trade a form of distinction for a more public and general coomunity. Developments in technology have made it easier to pick up and take apart media around us, individuals have a new forum upon which hey can enter into public discussion, free from mainstream media. These new technologies link average citizens, professionals, and activists to exchange in discourse that may have not been available in any other form. <ref> Day, 40-42 </ref>

=== Institutions ===

"The remix becomes an act of social creativity."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "It potentially changes the way we relate to each other."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> "All of our normal social interactions become an invitation to collective expression."<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> It's our real social lives that are transformed into art.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

The remix refers to individuals who use shared culture as a kind of language to communicate something to an audience. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Also, the social remix is used to mediate people's relationships with each other.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref> Lawrence Lessig shows how Republicans have been more open to creative sharing than Democrats, owing he argues to Republicans' shared ideology that separates out the creative potential of the individual from the collective corporatist structure, thus having more of a respect for creators' rights to ''remix'' a copyrighted endeavor for the collective good.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>

A remix can be used in satire to more accurately "mock" an idea or subject that the satire is trying to explain. A remix is modified versions of an earlier idea<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html</ref>. The term remix is used when a creator uses what the past creators has provided to create new, innovative ideas<ref>http://www.ehow.com/about_6534470_remix-vs_-plagiarism-films.html</ref>.

Coorination costs are the financial difficulties in arranging group output. if you want to coordinate the work of people you create an institution which brings resources together and coordinate the activity of the groups. Cooperation needs to be put into the infastructure without regard to institutional models. There are a large number of people on the internet, but not everyone has what you need to create an infastructure. You need to draw them in to create a way to make an institution to meet a certain goal. This creates a need for management and structure (economic, physical, legal), as well as breaking down exlcusionary matters. Essentially, in creating cooperation into infastructure to create institutions, closed groups and companies will give way to looser networks where small contributors have big roles and fluid cooperation replaces rigid planning. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html</ref>

According to Howard Rheingold, we live a collaborative life. For Example: Wikipedia is a natural instinct of people working as a group. Wikipedia is not there to compete but people coming together to work on a common project. The print press came along within decades and millions of people became literate, new forms of collective actions emerged within the spheres of knowledge, religion, politics, and wealth.

Publics and counterpublics, mentioned above, are fast becoming institutions in and of themselves. Seth Godwin argues that the old ideas of ''tribalism'' have reemerged during the digital era, resulting in more diversity of thought and action than what was assumed would be the case with our modern hyper-connectivity. Now, fringe individuals who were before powerless to advance their ideas, can join with like minds through a variety of social networking options thus leveraging their effectiveness in the marketplace of ideas. <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead.html</ref>

=== Audience ===

A rhetorical situation can act as as a natural context of persons, events, objects, and relations which strongly invites utterance. This therefore occurs naturally in the rhetorical situation, and is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity. This helps to define rhetorical character of which the three requirements of audience, constraints, and exigence are necessarily important for rhetorical discourse. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

The audience has the ability to set the discourse, to focus on cues from the writer. Therefore, the audience has assumed power in that it is regarded as having attitudes, beliefs, and expectations that are known to the writer. Even though writers feel that they can never truly know their audience but can invoke emotion from them, or create an image for them. Not knowing your audience is a common struggle for writers, but being able to create the same image that you see when ou write make it easier.However, this model seems to put more emphasis on the writer than on the discourse or the dynamic between the writer and audience that acts to facilitate a rhetorical situation. The appropriate rhetorical situation has a balance of creativity from the writer and the creativity of the reader. By understanding the needs of an audience, and whether that audience is addressed (assumed) or invoked (imagined), a communicator has a better chance of reaching that audience.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

An audience is (universal/particular -- those capable of being influenced and those capable of influencing) <ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref> Lloyd F. Bitzer defines ''rhetorical situation'' as "a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance."<ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Thus defined, since such a confluence of parts is naturally changing, an effective speaker should recognize and adapt to these changes in order to effectively reach that audience.

An audience is the group of people that a rhetorical writer and/or speaker is trying to persuade into the beliefs of what that rhetoric writer wants to the audience to realize<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

"There are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience."<ref>http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html</ref>
Discourse is Situated: 1) For audience, possibly pairing with content course 2) against hypothetical or physical audience and instead focuses on "cues" that writers use.<ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref> But Ede and Lunsford state that this oversimplifies the complexities of audience in the rhetorical situation. <ref>http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/</ref>

There is an indefinite amount of information for the rhetor to choose from in a situation. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> Meaning that the rhetor can select the information he or she feels is relevant to the argument they are making in their satire. This view is opposite of Lloyd F. Bitzer's, who defines a rhetorical situation as "natural and objective." <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref> However, if rhetorical situations were objective, then there would not be much room for discourse let alone satire. Richard E. Vatz makes the same argument against Bitzer in the following article. <ref>http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/</ref>

Fears about privacy come with new technology. We have new tools that enable us to do so much. If all we do is pay attention to is privacy, we loose publicness. You can get great benefit from sharing. Others may similarly benefit from what you have to contribute. Often it can be seen as selfish to hold back. In addressing policy, it is critical to understand your risks and goals when assessing how much information to share with the public. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

We may look more deeply into our audience in building our message. As Vatz makes the point, How the rhetor interprets events plays a huge part in creating meaning, and doesn’t create a set rhetorical response to an exigence; thus, Vatz feels he is putting more responsibility on the rhetor: “the rhetor is responsible for what he [sic] chooses to make salient” (168).

Class Debate: Satire is serious. It informs people who are apathetic by entertainment. Satirical news can be more entertaining than the regular news. Satire is arguably better than the regular news because it is straight forward with no intentions of hurting feelings and not being afraid of peoples’ reactions. These commentators make it so that one can understand the issue at hand. The introduction of satire is so attention grabbing it gets you into the news. Satire still gets the current event point across while showing flaws in people/groups. This news brings in a different audience, young ones who do not watch the news. Satire is still funny but at the same time plays a serious role.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tribes and Attention

"Publicness" is about organizing movements or clubs. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

If all we do is pay attention to privacy, then we may lose the opportunities and benefits of publicness. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_noeUjqiw</ref>

As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html</ref>

Satire and Tradition

Video and digital technologies make it relatively easy and inexpensive for the staff of ''The Daily Show'', to obtain and edit the day's newsclips.<ref>Day 54</ref> And, as John Caldwell points out, "By 2000, widespread use of digital servers (allowing random and multiple access to image and sound) made the task of finding and incorporating archived file footage far less daunting." <ref>Day 54</ref>

Online satire have a more developed incorporation of the real into the mimetic. The form has moved and increasingly blurred the line between news and entertainment, satirizing real news footage as it unfolds and ambushing and interviewing real political leaders. This has only led to the popularity of video and digital satire. <ref> Day, 57 </ref>

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

A remix is made when two elements are joined to form a new, different element with a different meaning. Lawrence Lessig talks about taking songs and remixing them to make something different <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref>.

Fair use is the right, in some circumstances, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying for it. Fair use enables the creation of new culture, and keeps current copyright holders from being private censors <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

=== Open Source ===

The public domain is the commons of information where nothing is owned and all is permitted <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>.

The acronym "API" stands for Application Programming Interface <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire is an open source application.

Essentially, an open API is something that can be modified<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>. Satire uses other ideas and "modifies" them, so the API for satire would be the "program" that satire is using to create its own idea of the same program. ''Open source satire'' relies on the creative works of others in remixing the work to convert it to satire. An example would be when a satirist takes a real news story and converts it to satire. This act of modifying an original source is legally predicated on the original source being ''open source'', or, in other words, not protected by copyright.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3BrAQl3so&feature=related</ref>

The open source model also encourages creativity in software since it allows others to modify its function with a potential for unlimited improvement. Mozilla Firefox internet browser is an example of open source software, and the marketplace ultimately determines if the product is successful. Open API, on the other hand, is only open in the sense that others can view the source programming: Twitter and Facebook work like this, where the source code is used to coordinate with other websites and applications. An important distinction between Open Source and Open API is that the former allows users to modify the source code itself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API</ref>

The Creative Commons is kind of like open source and having an API.

''Remixing'' recreates, using digital technologies, existing content into something new that is then added to our culture.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html</ref> The remixed creation relies on existing content being available to the remixers. Fair Use statutes govern this process, thereby either encouraging or stifling this creative process. Many believe existing copyright law does not adequately address the best model for an increasingly digitalized 21st century and that change is needed in the form of new law. Others, like Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, believe existing copyright and fair use law have been misinterpreted and misappropriated to serve only large commercial interests. Their book ''Reclaiming Fair Use'' argues that "fair use" is often misunderstood; they challenge the "widely held notion that current copyright law has become unworkable and obsolete in the era of digital technologies," thereby hoping to "reshape the debate in both scholarly circles and the creative community." <ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/reclaiming</ref>

You cannot transmit what you know under a certain set of circumstances. The effect includes open source software, critical in web based communications. Most intellect is produced in this form to capture a component of the net. Software has done this in a way that is very visible because it is measurable. NASA did an experiment where they took images of Mars, and instead of having multiple Ph.d.s working all the time, they put images on the web. Now many people use it to map, which is indestinguishable from those made by individuals with a P.h.d.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html</ref>

A remix is a creation of an idea that bases its own idea from a source from past ideas. Remixing can be dangerous if the creator of the remix does not follow the copyright laws that are put in place to protect an individuals idea from being copied<ref>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use</ref>.

Remix culture is a term used to describe a society which allows and encourages derivative works. Remix is defined as combining or editing existing materials to produce a new product. A Remix Culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the work of copyright holders. <ref>http://www.everythingisaremix.info/</ref>

=== Memes ===

A meme is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." <ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme</ref>. The word "meme" is derived from the greek word "mimeme" which means "something imitated" and was coined for its modern definition by British biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 for his idea on evolutionary processes for explaining how ideas and culture spread as a natural process of communicating <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=YphlBwpbJCUC&pg=PA16</ref>. The theory of evolution applied to memes as noted by Dawkins says that memes either evolve and adapt with their shared meaning or they die out and become extinct. We can see this in our modern use of memes as they come and go.

A meme typically raises questions of justice and fairness and is built by remixing an existing idea. In visual form, the existing idea often represents a public while the meme represents a counterpublic. Memes sometimes, however, function only to relay humor as in the case of “Success Kid,” <ref>http://memegenerator.net/Success-Kid</ref> who argues ''anything'' or ''nothing'' depending on the user added content superimposed onto his fabric. Humor-only memes are little more than a condensed joke, but social-activist memes can be powerful agents of change. Additionally, a broader movement like Occupy Wall Street <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref> can also be considered a meme when this visual fabric idea is extrapolated to represent specific ideas superimposed upon broader ones. OWS demonstrations vary widely on the specific minor goal, vehicle, or agency, but the underlying fabric (the meme fabric) is the broader idea that 99% of citizens should have more influence than the 1% who currently control American government. As long as the specific goal is in concert with the broader one, the OWS movement has unity in direction. In this way, OWS can be compared to general “Success Kid” who is set by users into a variety of specific contexts. By contrast, the visual framework of “Success Kid” is more discrete in this application and generally represents what most consider being a ''meme''.

Occupy Wall Street was, essentially, a type of meme. Memes are expressions used to portray an idea or belief to prove a point. In the Occupy Wall Street, people were expressing their ideas to help prove a point to what they were demanding <ref>Week 5</ref>

The Arab Spring brought down cruel dictatorships and brought in freedom, democracy and change from existing political and economic systems <ref>http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-wall-street</ref>.

Susan Blackmore argues that humanity has spawned a new kind of meme. She says the new form of meme is spread by the technology that we've created <ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html</ref>.

Phil T. Rich argues that "memes are media viruses that spread throughout the population. Urban legends, fleeting fashions, and idiotic ad slogans that work their way into everyday conversations are memes <ref>Day 165</ref>. Moreover, memes can be used as a culture of resistance" <ref>Day 166</ref>.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satire is used to go against power and oppression.

Satire is verbal aggression of some aspect being exposed to ridicule.

=References=
<references/>

Civility

2012-07-11T15:48:08Z

Jeff: added bit about Herbst's book

Note: this is a collection of notes for future addition somewhere:

A lot of contemporary scholarship on deliberation talks about "ideal speech situations," rational argumentation, following norms, and staying productive, all of which point toward some kind of civility. The Journal of Public Deliberation publishes about this, but it's also in other places (like John Gastil's book By Popular Demand)

Other than scholars of deliberation, Gerard Hauser's 2002 Introduction to Rhetorical Theory talks about being open to other viewpoints and remembering that we may be wrong. He cites Henry Johnstone's binary of bilateral and unilateral discussion, but that's quite a bit older.

Robert Ivie's book Democracy and America's War on Terror also touches on the idea of civility. He says, for example, that "[t]he better alternative is a democratic rhetoric of identification that deploys reason to build bridges between otherwise warring communities both at home and abroad" (91).

This is a bit older, but Wayne Booth's idea of Listening-Rhetoric, or rhetorology, is fundamentally about seeking common ground, listening, and being civil, even in the face of profound disagreement (he hits this heavily in his book The Rhetoric of RHETORIC).

Sharon Crowley's Toward a Civil Discourse comes to mind. It's a few years old now (2006?) but it might be worth your time. She does brilliant work integrating Chantal Mouffe's notion agonistic pluralism into so-called non-political public debates that might otherwise be governed by fundamentalism/s.

A good place to start might be the presentations at the conference on civility and democracy at the National Constitution Center in March 2011. At the website you can watch a keynote address advocating civility by Amy Gutmann, President of U Penn, along with videos of some of the breakout sessions, which included an impressive list of scholars in history (e.g. Alan Brinkley), religious studies (e.g. Thomas Kidd), communication studies (e.g. Kathleen Hall Jamieson), and other fields, most of whom have written about civility in one fashion or another. Here's the link:

http://constitutioncenter.org/programs-events/public-symposium-on-civility-and-democracy/

Ken Burns even made a promo clip promoting the conference: http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2011/ncc-ken-burns/

Hope this helps, although I should warn you that the only people arguing AGAINST civility at the conference are the Tea Party activists and Newt Gingrich's former press secretary! Politics sure make for strange bedfellows.

The first thing that came to my mind is the "Civility Web Site" at John's Hopkins:

http://krieger.jhu.edu/civility/ The project identifies some scholarship and history of calls for civility that might be of interest.

http://nicd.arizona.edu/research_briefs

There are scholarly accounts that seek (more or less openly) to re-establish civility--perhaps Stephen L. Carter's book _Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy_ (Basic Books 1998) would fall into this category.

Perhaps more relevant for your very interesting project would be work that (1) rhetorically unpacks the concept of civility and/or (2) analyzes the argumentative effects of appeals to civility.

An example of (1) would be "The Rhetoric of Civility and the Fate of Argument" in Swearingen (ed.) _Rhetoric, the Polis, and the Global Village_ Erlbaum 1999 (pp. 247-253).

Please also look at Susan Herbst's recent book "Rude Democracy: Civility and Uncivility in AMerican Political Discourse" (not sure I got the subtitle exactly right). This is an important --if brief-- examination of the civility question that goes beyond the usual scholarly prescriptions of proper civil argument and discourse, and analyzes some of the uses and history of incivility. For example, she argues that incivility can be a stratgeic rhetorical move, e.g. Sarah Palin.

Civility

2012-07-10T20:20:56Z

Jeff:

Civility

2012-07-10T19:51:02Z

Jeff: Notes for a future section/article on civility

Digital Satire

2012-07-03T14:11:44Z

Jeff: /* Satire */ added url reference for enthymemes

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Rhetoric consists of the various methods used in an effort to make an effective argument with the purpose of persuading an audience. A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.'' Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively.

=== Satire ===
Satire is often accredited with acting as a literary genre or form. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms. Ideally the intent of using satire is to improve society through constructive criticism, however this can often be abused and for that reason much of satire is viewed as merely ridicule. Yet, although it is meant to be funny, satire has profound capabilities in improving social deficits.

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions <ref>http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/E/enthymeme.htm</ref>. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse <Ref>Day 11-13</Ref>. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" <Ref>Day 21</Ref>. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity ===

=== Community ===

=== Institutions ===

=== Audience ===

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

=== Open Source ===

=== Memes ===

=References=
<references/>

Digital Satire

2012-07-03T14:08:04Z

Jeff: /* Memes */

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Rhetoric consists of the various methods used in an effort to make an effective argument with the purpose of persuading an audience. A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.'' Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively.

=== Satire ===
Satire is often accredited with acting as a literary genre or form. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms. Ideally the intent of using satire is to improve society through constructive criticism, however this can often be abused and for that reason much of satire is viewed as merely ridicule. Yet, although it is meant to be funny, satire has profound capabilities in improving social deficits.

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse <Ref>Day 11-13</Ref>. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" <Ref>Day 21</Ref>. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity ===

=== Community ===

=== Institutions ===

=== Audience ===

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

=== Open Source ===

=== Memes ===

=References=
<references/>

Digital Satire

2012-07-03T13:38:34Z

Jeff: /* Satire */ Converted Day references into footnotes

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Rhetoric consists of the various methods used in an effort to make an effective argument with the purpose of persuading an audience. A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.'' Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively.

=== Satire ===
Satire is often accredited with acting as a literary genre or form. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms. Ideally the intent of using satire is to improve society through constructive criticism, however this can often be abused and for that reason much of satire is viewed as merely ridicule. Yet, although it is meant to be funny, satire has profound capabilities in improving social deficits.

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of The Daily Show with Jon Steward or The Colbert Report, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse <Ref>Day 11-13</Ref>. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" <Ref>Day 21</Ref>. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity ===

=== Community ===

=== Institutions ===

=== Audience ===

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

=== Open Source ===

=== Memes ===

*=References=
<references/>

Digital Satire

2012-07-03T13:37:37Z

Jeff:

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Rhetoric consists of the various methods used in an effort to make an effective argument with the purpose of persuading an audience. A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.'' Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively.

=== Satire ===
Satire is often accredited with acting as a literary genre or form. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms. Ideally the intent of using satire is to improve society through constructive criticism, however this can often be abused and for that reason much of satire is viewed as merely ridicule. Yet, although it is meant to be funny, satire has profound capabilities in improving social deficits.

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of The Daily Show with Jon Steward or The Colbert Report, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse (Day 11-13). Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" (Day 21). Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity ===

=== Community ===

=== Institutions ===

=== Audience ===

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

=== Open Source ===

=== Memes ===

*=References=
<references/>

Digital Satire

2012-07-03T13:37:04Z

Jeff: Started references section; added first reference

== Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media ==

=== Rhetoric ===
Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Rhetoric consists of the various methods used in an effort to make an effective argument with the purpose of persuading an audience. A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called ''satire.'' Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively.

=== Satire ===
Satire is often accredited with acting as a literary genre or form. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms. Ideally the intent of using satire is to improve society through constructive criticism, however this can often be abused and for that reason much of satire is viewed as merely ridicule. Yet, although it is meant to be funny, satire has profound capabilities in improving social deficits.

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like ''enthymemes,'' understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation ''for'' a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of The Daily Show with Jon Steward or The Colbert Report, is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse (Day 11-13). Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective <Ref>http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract</Ref>. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" (Day 21). Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo.

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity ===

=== Community ===

=== Institutions ===

=== Audience ===

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

=== Open Source ===

=== Memes ===

*=References=

Digital Satire

2012-06-20T16:36:29Z

Jeff: reorganized the page and drafted a framework for student notes

== Satire, Digital media, and Rhetoric ==

=== Satire and Rhetoric ===

=== Satire and Digital Media ===

== Communities of Satire ==

=== Identity ===

=== Community ===

=== Institutions ===

=== Audience ===

== Crowdsourced Satire ==

=== Open Source ===

=== Memes ===

Digital Satire

2012-06-20T15:19:04Z

Jeff: added a lame prompt

== Definitions ==

===Digital ===
===Digital Rhetoric===
===Satire===

==What else needs to go here?==

Digital Satire

2012-06-20T15:18:09Z

Jeff: Created page with " == Definitions == ===Digital === ===Digital Rhetoric=== ===Satire==="

== Definitions ==

===Digital ===
===Digital Rhetoric===
===Satire===

Theories and Movements

2012-06-20T15:16:51Z

Jeff: /* Emerging Media */ added links to "Digital Rhetoric" and "Digital Satire"

This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.

== Cognitive Rhetoric ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_rhetoric Cognitive Rhetoric]

== Conservatism ==

[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]], [[Anti-Nominalism]]

== Emerging Media ==
===Video Games===

[http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/026269364Xchap6.pdf ''Ian Bogost: the Rhetoric of Video Games'']

===Digital Rhetoric===

[[Digital Satire]]

==Feminist Criticism==

[[Celeste Condit]], author of [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335639209384002#preview "Post-Burke: Transcending the Sub-Stance of Dramatism"] (1992).

[[Phyllis M. Japp]], author of “Can This Marriage Be Saved? Reclaiming Burke for Feminist Scholarship" from [http://books.google.com/books?id=CcD9wYsIy1kC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=Can+This+Marriage+Be+Saved?+Reclaiming+Burke+for+Feminist+Scholarship&source=bl&ots=0VKRayAKL4&sig=ngZCugp8lAoRrM0FwJ9pjQqId5Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sTeHT_eJG4aS8AG5sf2VCA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Can%20This%20Marriage%20Be%20Saved%3F%20Reclaiming%20Burke%20for%20Feminist%20Scholarship&f=false Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century] (1999).

== Literary Criticism ==

[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]

== New Rhetorics ==

[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]

[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal

[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]

== Pedagogical Studies ==

More a movement than a single theory, these authors have examined the way we teach rhetoric, composition, and research. The pedagogical movements listed here draw heavily from the principles of cognitive rhetoric, calling for an in-depth study of the processes of writing and research. These pedagogical models all hold that the subject matter in question, be it composition, research, or rhetorical practices, can be taught, codified, and improved upon with careful practice and consideration. They further maintain that the basic survey courses offered (think Composition I) do not adequately convey the ''techne'' required to master the subject at hand.

[[Douglas Downs]], b. : [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”|Teaching About Writing]]

[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]

[[Doug Eyman]], b. : [[Eyman, Doug and Colleen Reilly "Multifaceted Methods for Multimodal Texts"|Multifaceted Methods for Multimodal Texts]]

[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]

[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: [[Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”|In Lieu of a New Rhetoric]]

[[Rebecca Rickly]], b. : [[Rickly, Rebecca "Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation"|Messy Contextx: Research as a Rhetorical Situation]]

[[Colleen Reilly]], b. : [[Eyman, Doug and Colleen Reilly "Multifaceted Methods for Multimodal Texts"|Multifaceted Methods for Multimodal Texts]]

[[Elizabeth Wardle]], b. : [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”|Teaching About Writing]]

== Post-Structuralism ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism Post-Structuralism]

[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]

== Rogerian Rhetoric ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument Rogerian Argument]

Rogerian rhetoric is derived from the theories of Carl Rogers. Rogers originally developed his ideas as a method of therapy that was centered around understanding the person being treated. Initially called non-directive therapy, this system became the foundation for Rogers' broader ideas of the self and learning. These ideas have been applied across disciplines, heavily influencing one branch of rhetorical studies.

Rogerian rhetoric then, is the idea that persuasion is most effective when the positions on all side of the argument are understood, and a connection is made between the people involved. Terms such as non-combative and person-centered are some of the theory's watch-words.

Rogerian rhetoric typically consists of 4 main stages:
# An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.
# A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.
# A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.
# A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better (Brent)

[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]

[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]

See Also:

[[Wikipedia:Carl_Rogers|Carl Rogers]]

== Semiotics ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics Semiotics]

Originally developed by Ferdinand de Saussure as a part of the framework for structural linguistics, Semiotics is the field of study devoted to [[wikipedia:Sign_(semiotics)|sign]] and communication. Semiotics holds that meaning is created and conveyed through linguistic sign. Related works examine the relationship between signified and signifier, how signs fit into larger works, and how signs influence and change the people that use them.

[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] ("The Dialogic Imagination"), [[Speech genres]]

[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing

[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]

See also:
[http://www.bzzzpeek.com Bzzzpeek]

== Sophism ==

From Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism "Sophism"]

"Sophism in the modern definition is a specious argument used for deceiving someone. In ancient Greece, sophists were a category of teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric for the purpose of teaching arete — excellence, or virtue — predominantly to young statesmen and nobility. The practice of charging money for education and providing wisdom only to those who could pay led to the condemnations made by Socrates, through [[Plato]] in his Dialogues, as well as Xenophon's Memorabilia. Through works such as these, Sophists were portrayed as "specious" or "deceptive," hence the modern meaning of the term."

See Also:

*[[Aristotle]]
*[[Plato]]

== Writing and Technology ==

[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:

[[Cynthia L. Selfe]]: [[Influential Role in "Computers in the Composition Classroom"]]

[[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]: [[Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures]]

== Uncategorized ==

'''Authors'''

[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]

[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]

[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]

[[John M. Slatin]]:

[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:

[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:

[[John Logie]]:

[[Sean D. Williams]]:

[[Steven Fraiberg]]:

Sorapure et al.?

Palmquist et al.?

[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:

'''Theories/Movements'''

[[Belletristic/Elocution]]

[[Semanticism]]

== Rhetoric and Democratic Theory ==
[[Portal:Democratic Theory]]

Portal:Democratic Theory

2012-06-07T04:04:31Z

Jeff:

[[Why Democratic Theory?]]

*'''Foundations'''
**Etienne de la Boetie. [[The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.]] Black Rose.
**Hobbes. [[Leviathan]]. Norton.
**Locke. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge.
**Spinoza. [[Theological Political Treatise; Political Treatise]]. Cambridge.
**Rousseau. On the Social Contract. Hackett.
**Plato. The Republic.
**Aristotle. On Politics.

*'''Constitutionalism and Sovereignty'''
**Giorgio Agamben. State of Exception. Chicago.
**Walter Benjamin. “Critique of Violence.” In One Way Street. Verso.
**Derrida. Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’” In Acts of Religion. Routledge.
**Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. MIT.

*'''Liberalism and Democracy'''
**Wendy Brown. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton
**John Durham Peters. Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition. Chicago.

*'''The Problem of Representation'''
**Pitkin, The Concept of Representation. California.
**Melissa Williams. Voice, Trust and Memory. Princeton.

*'''Deliberative Democracy and its Critics'''
**Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. MIT.
**Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other. MIT.
**Bohman and Rehg, eds., Deliberative Democracy. MIT.
**Seyla Benhabib. ed. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton.
**Ranciere. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minnesota.

*'''Democratic Compositions'''
**Jodi Dean. Democracy and other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke.
**Michael Hardt. Thomas Jefferson: The Declaration of Independence. Verso.
**Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State.
**Ernesto Laclau. On Populist Reason.

Portal:Democratic Theory

2012-06-07T04:04:06Z

Jeff:

[[Why Democratic Theory?]]

*'''Foundations'''
**Etienne de la Boetie. [[The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.]] Black Rose.
**Hobbes. [[Leviathan]]. Norton.
**Locke. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge.
**Spinoza. [[Theological Political Treatise; Political Treatise]]. Cambridge.
**Rousseau. On the Social Contract. Hackett.
**Plato. The Republic.
**Aristotle. On Politics.

*'''Constitutionalism and Sovereignty'''
**Giorgio Agamben. State of Exception. Chicago.
**Walter Benjamin. “Critique of Violence.” In One Way Street. Verso.
**Derrida. Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’” In Acts of Religion. Routledge.
**Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. MIT.

*'''Liberalism and Democracy'''
**Wendy Brown. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton
**John Durham Peters. Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition. Chicago.

*'''The Problem of Representation'''
**Pitkin, The Concept of Representation. California.
**Melissa Williams. Voice, Trust and Memory. Princeton.

'''Deliberative Democracy and its Critics'''
**Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. MIT.
**Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other. MIT.
**Bohman and Rehg, eds., Deliberative Democracy. MIT.
**Seyla Benhabib. ed. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton.
**Ranciere. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minnesota.

'''Democratic Compositions'''
**Jodi Dean. Democracy and other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke.
**Michael Hardt. Thomas Jefferson: The Declaration of Independence. Verso.
**Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State.
**Ernesto Laclau. On Populist Reason.

The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.

2012-06-07T04:01:52Z

Jeff:

''why in the world do people consent to their own enslavement?''
--Rothbard (13)

Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude argues that “every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance” (12). His argument plays out in three parts. In the first section he explains his thesis that tyranny is powered by the consent of the people. In the second section he explores the conditions of voluntary servitude, and in the final section he both explains how tyranny works and then charts a course through the destruction of that tyranny.

''“who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty?” (46).''

In the first section, La Boétie wonders why people obey the commands of the government, “a small minority of the society” (13). This minority, La Boétie argues, oppresses the people not through fear, force, or coercion, but through express consent. Because of this consent, toppling tyranny does not require force or violence against the tyrant as much as it requires ceasing violence against oneself: “it is not necessary to deprive [the tyrant] of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude” (46).

In his second section, La Boétie explores how voluntary servitude comes about. Initially, “tyranny can only be initially imposed by conquest or by deception” (21). As soon as the people have lost their liberty they soon forget its value: “this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.” (55). This voluntary subordination is supported by ideological (or physical) propaganda: “Specious ideology, mystery, circuses; in addition to these purely propagandistic devices, another device is used by rulers to gain the consent of their subjects: purchase by material benefits, bread as well as circuses” (25). In addition to propaganda, custom and force of habit become the driving force for voluntary servitude (60).

La Boétie makes an important point in this section, suggesting that his definition of “tyranny” doesn't just mean a despot who wrests control through violence: “There are three kinds of tyrants; some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance” (53). This point underscores the flexibility of La Boétie's definition of tyrant, which possibly stretches all the way from conquering despot to elected charisma.

In this section La Boétie explains the workings of tyranny, based first and foremost upon “[a] hierarchy of patronage” (27). The tyrant delegates the difficult work of oppression down to subordinates, who then oppress even as they are oppressed—it's tyrannies all the way down (see 28). This hierarchy operates only if the people are not educated to the ruse, meaning that “the primary task of opponents of modem tyranny is an educational one: to awaken the public to this process, to demystify and desanctify the State apparatus” (35). While La Boétie seems to argue for some sort of vanguard to educate the populace (or, as Rothgard puts it, to “debamboozle” the public), the only way any efforts against the tyrant would ever be successful is if they came from the ground up rather than from the top down.

'''Implications'''

While focused on the nature of oppression and authority, La Boétie demonstrates that “democracy” is more than mere “government by the consent of the people.” La Boétie argues that tyranny itself is based on the consent of the people. While La Boétie “never extended his analysis from tyrannical government to government per se” (18), modern economist Ludwig von Mises did, “stress[ing] the fact that all governments must rest on majority consent” (35).

As mentioned in the forward, David Hume adds an important insight to the discussion: “When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular” (13).

La Boétie's theory of tyranny moves such despotism from the realm of force into the realm of rhetoric. This form of government isn't inevitable, nor is it rigid in its hierarch-ized power, but instead is constructed and maintained through force of rhetoric.

The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.

2012-06-07T04:01:32Z

Jeff: Created page with "''why in the world do people consent to their own enslavement?'' --Rothbard (13) Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude argues that “every tyranny must nece..."

''why in the world do people consent to their own enslavement?''
--Rothbard (13)

Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude argues that “every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance” (12). His argument plays out in three parts. In the first section he explains his thesis that tyranny is powered by the consent of the people. In the second section he explores the conditions of voluntary servitude, and in the final section he both explains how tyranny works and then charts a course through the destruction of that tyranny.

''“who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty?” (46).''

In the first section, La Boétie wonders why people obey the commands of the government, “a small minority of the society” (13). This minority, La Boétie argues, oppresses the people not through fear, force, or coercion, but through express consent. Because of this consent, toppling tyranny does not require force or violence against the tyrant as much as it requires ceasing violence against oneself: “it is not necessary to deprive [the tyrant] of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude” (46).

In his second section, La Boétie explores how voluntary servitude comes about. Initially, “tyranny can only be initially imposed by conquest or by deception” (21). As soon as the people have lost their liberty they soon forget its value: “this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.” (55). This voluntary subordination is supported by ideological (or physical) propaganda: “Specious ideology, mystery, circuses; in addition to these purely propagandistic devices, another device is used by rulers to gain the consent of their subjects: purchase by material benefits, bread as well as circuses” (25). In addition to propaganda, custom and force of habit become the driving force for voluntary servitude (60).

La Boétie makes an important point in this section, suggesting that his definition of “tyranny” doesn't just mean a despot who wrests control through violence: “There are three kinds of tyrants; some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance” (53). This point underscores the flexibility of La Boétie's definition of tyrant, which possibly stretches all the way from conquering despot to elected charisma.

In this section La Boétie explains the workings of tyranny, based first and foremost upon “[a] hierarchy of patronage” (27). The tyrant delegates the difficult work of oppression down to subordinates, who then oppress even as they are oppressed—it's tyrannies all the way down (see 28). This hierarchy operates only if the people are not educated to the ruse, meaning that “the primary task of opponents of modem tyranny is an educational one: to awaken the public to this process, to demystify and desanctify the State apparatus” (35). While La Boétie seems to argue for some sort of vanguard to educate the populace (or, as Rothgard puts it, to “debamboozle” the public), the only way any efforts against the tyrant would ever be successful is if they came from the ground up rather than from the top down.

'''Implications:'''

While focused on the nature of oppression and authority, La Boétie demonstrates that “democracy” is more than mere “government by the consent of the people.” La Boétie argues that tyranny itself is based on the consent of the people. While La Boétie “never extended his analysis from tyrannical government to government per se” (18), modern economist Ludwig von Mises did, “stress[ing] the fact that all governments must rest on majority consent” (35).

As mentioned in the forward, David Hume adds an important insight to the discussion: “When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular” (13).

La Boétie's theory of tyranny moves such despotism from the realm of force into the realm of rhetoric. This form of government isn't inevitable, nor is it rigid in its hierarch-ized power, but instead is constructed and maintained through force of rhetoric.

Leviathan

2012-06-07T03:59:51Z

Jeff:

''during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre''
--Hobbes (Part I Chapter XIII)

Hobbes' Leviathan argues for the necessity of an absolute sovereign in order to overcome the bellum omnium contra omnes—war of all against all.

'''Power'''

Hobbes believes that there are two types of power. “Natural power” is the “eminence of the Faculties of Body, or Mind” (51). People are either born with this type of power or they are born without it. Most power, however, is what Hobbes calls “instrumental”: “those powers, which acquired by these, or by fortune, are means and instruments to acquire more” (51). This power is constructed by individual initiative or luck. All this power, though, is of no use to the body politic unless it is given to a sovereign (105). This power can be given voluntarily (a “sovereignty by institution”) or given out of fear (a “common-wealth by acquisition”) (126). But in either case, the power is voluntarily given: “in both cases they do it for fear” (127). Because this power is given voluntarily, “every subject is author of every act the sovereign doth” (135).

'''Human Nature'''

For Hobbes, the root of all distinctions lie within us: “whatsoever is the object of any mans appetite or desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth good: and the object of his hate, and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil, and contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so” (29). Individuals all have will, which Hobbes defines as “the last appetite in deliberation,” or the desire to act voluntarily (34). This will must be forfeited to a sovereign if the natural state of chaos, of war of all against all. This chaos is inevitable without a sovereign, because humanity insists on distinguishing between the common good and the private good: “man, whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminent” (107).

'''State of Emergency'''

Without a sovereign, humanity is naturally in chaos. Everyone has a “right to everything; even to one anothers body” (79), “and to do whatsoever he [thinks] necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto” (201).

Hobbes cannot imagine what it would be like for peace to exist in the absence of a sovereign: “for if we could suppose a great multitude of men to consent in the observation of justice, and other laws of nature, without a common power to keep them all in awe . . . there neither would be, nor need to be any civil government, or common-wealth at all; because there would be peace without subjection” (106).

Without a sovereign, there would be no industry, navigation, commodious building, knowledge of the face of the earth, account of time, arts, letters, or society, and people would live in “continual fear, and danger of violent death” (77).

'''Affect'''

Even with an absolute sovereign, people tend to seek their own gain at the expense of everyone else, assuming that their wealth “were an effect of their wit, or riches, or bloud, or some other natural quality, not depending on the will of those that have the sovereign authority” (192). Hobbes disagrees with la Boetie here—indifference is not the biggest danger plaguing the affectations of the body politic, but greed and selfishness (89, 159).

Leviathan

2012-06-07T03:59:28Z

Jeff:

''during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe,
they are in that condition which is called Warre''
--Hobbes (Part I Chapter XIII)

Hobbes' Leviathan argues for the necessity of an absolute sovereign in order to overcome the bellum omnium contra omnes—war of all against all.

'''Power'''

Hobbes believes that there are two types of power. “Natural power” is the “eminence of the Faculties of Body, or Mind” (51). People are either born with this type of power or they are born without it. Most power, however, is what Hobbes calls “instrumental”: “those powers, which acquired by these, or by fortune, are means and instruments to acquire more” (51). This power is constructed by individual initiative or luck. All this power, though, is of no use to the body politic unless it is given to a sovereign (105). This power can be given voluntarily (a “sovereignty by institution”) or given out of fear (a “common-wealth by acquisition”) (126). But in either case, the power is voluntarily given: “in both cases they do it for fear” (127). Because this power is given voluntarily, “every subject is author of every act the sovereign doth” (135).

'''Human Nature'''

For Hobbes, the root of all distinctions lie within us: “whatsoever is the object of any mans appetite or desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth good: and the object of his hate, and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil, and contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so” (29). Individuals all have will, which Hobbes defines as “the last appetite in deliberation,” or the desire to act voluntarily (34). This will must be forfeited to a sovereign if the natural state of chaos, of war of all against all. This chaos is inevitable without a sovereign, because humanity insists on distinguishing between the common good and the private good: “man, whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminent” (107).

'''State of Emergency'''

Without a sovereign, humanity is naturally in chaos. Everyone has a “right to everything; even to one anothers body” (79), “and to do whatsoever he [thinks] necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto” (201).

Hobbes cannot imagine what it would be like for peace to exist in the absence of a sovereign: “for if we could suppose a great multitude of men to consent in the observation of justice, and other laws of nature, without a common power to keep them all in awe . . . there neither would be, nor need to be any civil government, or common-wealth at all; because there would be peace without subjection” (106).

Without a sovereign, there would be no industry, navigation, commodious building, knowledge of the face of the earth, account of time, arts, letters, or society, and people would live in “continual fear, and danger of violent death” (77).

'''Affect'''

Even with an absolute sovereign, people tend to seek their own gain at the expense of everyone else, assuming that their wealth “were an effect of their wit, or riches, or bloud, or some other natural quality, not depending on the will of those that have the sovereign authority” (192). Hobbes disagrees with la Boetie here—indifference is not the biggest danger plaguing the affectations of the body politic, but greed and selfishness (89, 159).

Leviathan

2012-06-07T03:58:32Z

Jeff: Created page with "''during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre ''--Hobbes (Part I Chapter XIII) Hobbes' Leviathan a..."

''during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe,
they are in that condition which is called Warre
''--Hobbes (Part I Chapter XIII)

Hobbes' Leviathan argues for the necessity of an absolute sovereign in order to overcome the bellum omnium contra omnes—war of all against all.

'''Power'''
Hobbes believes that there are two types of power. “Natural power” is the “eminence of the Faculties of Body, or Mind” (51). People are either born with this type of power or they are born without it. Most power, however, is what Hobbes calls “instrumental”: “those powers, which acquired by these, or by fortune, are means and instruments to acquire more” (51). This power is constructed by individual initiative or luck. All this power, though, is of no use to the body politic unless it is given to a sovereign (105). This power can be given voluntarily (a “sovereignty by institution”) or given out of fear (a “common-wealth by acquisition”) (126). But in either case, the power is voluntarily given: “in both cases they do it for fear” (127). Because this power is given voluntarily, “every subject is author of every act the sovereign doth” (135).

'''Human Nature
'''For Hobbes, the root of all distinctions lie within us: “whatsoever is the object of any mans appetite or desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth good: and the object of his hate, and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil, and contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so” (29). Individuals all have will, which Hobbes defines as “the last appetite in deliberation,” or the desire to act voluntarily (34). This will must be forfeited to a sovereign if the natural state of chaos, of war of all against all. This chaos is inevitable without a sovereign, because humanity insists on distinguishing between the common good and the private good: “man, whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminent” (107).

'''State of Emergency
'''Without a sovereign, humanity is naturally in chaos. Everyone has a “right to everything; even to one anothers body” (79), “and to do whatsoever he [thinks] necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto” (201).

Hobbes cannot imagine what it would be like for peace to exist in the absence of a sovereign: “for if we could suppose a great multitude of men to consent in the observation of justice, and other laws of nature, without a common power to keep them all in awe . . . there neither would be, nor need to be any civil government, or common-wealth at all; because there would be peace without subjection” (106).

Without a sovereign, there would be no industry, navigation, commodious building, knowledge of the face of the earth, account of time, arts, letters, or society, and people would live in “continual fear, and danger of violent death” (77).

'''Affect'''
Even with an absolute sovereign, people tend to seek their own gain at the expense of everyone else, assuming that their wealth “were an effect of their wit, or riches, or bloud, or some other natural quality, not depending on the will of those that have the sovereign authority” (192). Hobbes disagrees with la Boetie here—indifference is not the biggest danger plaguing the affectations of the body politic, but greed and selfishness (89, 159).

Portal:Democratic Theory

2012-06-07T03:57:28Z

Jeff:

[[Why Democratic Theory?]]

*'''Foundations'''
**Etienne de la Boetie. [[The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.]] Black Rose.
**Hobbes. [[Leviathan]]. Norton.
**Locke. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge.
**Spinoza. [[Theological Political Treatise; Political Treatise]]. Cambridge.
**Rousseau. On the Social Contract. Hackett.
**Plato. The Republic.
**Aristotle. On Politics.

*'''Constitutionalism and Sovereignty'''
**Giorgio Agamben. State of Exception. Chicago.
**Walter Benjamin. “Critique of Violence.” In One Way Street. Verso.
**Derrida. Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’” In Acts of Religion. Routledge.
**Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. MIT.

*'''Liberalism and Democracy'''
**Wendy Brown. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton
**John Durham Peters. Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition. Chicago.

*'''The Problem of Representation'''
**Pitkin, The Concept of Representation. California.
**Melissa Williams. Voice, Trust and Memory. Princeton.

'''Deliberative Democracy and its Critics'''
Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. MIT.
Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other. MIT.
Bohman and Rehg, eds., Deliberative Democracy. MIT.
Seyla Benhabib. ed. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton.
Ranciere. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minnesota.

'''Democratic Compositions'''
Jodi Dean. Democracy and other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke.
Michael Hardt. Thomas Jefferson: The Declaration of Independence. Verso.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State.
Ernesto Laclau. On Populist Reason.

Why Democratic Theory?

2012-05-11T18:35:33Z

Jeff: Created page with "Why a portal for Democratic Theory on a Rhetoric wiki? '''The short answer''': rhetoric has been closely tied to democracy and democratic theory since before Aristotle. Rhetoric..."

Why a portal for Democratic Theory on a Rhetoric wiki?

'''The short answer''': rhetoric has been closely tied to democracy and democratic theory since before Aristotle. Rhetoric is concerned with deliberaiton, civic literacy, and imagination, all of which are integral to democracy.

'''The long answer''': ''. . . under construction . . .''

Portal:Democratic Theory

2012-05-11T18:32:48Z

Jeff:

[[Why Democratic Theory?]]

*'''Foundations'''
**Etienne de la Boetie. The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Black Rose.
**Hobbes. Leviathan. Norton.
**Locke. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge.
**Spinoza. Theological Political Treatise. Cambridge.
**Rousseau. On the Social Contract. Hackett.
**Plato. The Republic.
**Aristotle. On Politics.

*'''Constitutionalism and Sovereignty'''
**Giorgio Agamben. State of Exception. Chicago.
**Walter Benjamin. “Critique of Violence.” In One Way Street. Verso.
**Derrida. Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’” In Acts of Religion. Routledge.
**Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. MIT.

*'''Liberalism and Democracy'''
**Wendy Brown. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton
**John Durham Peters. Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition. Chicago.

*'''The Problem of Representation'''
**Pitkin, The Concept of Representation. California.
**Melissa Williams. Voice, Trust and Memory. Princeton.

'''Deliberative Democracy and its Critics'''
Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. MIT.
Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other. MIT.
Bohman and Rehg, eds., Deliberative Democracy. MIT.
Seyla Benhabib. ed. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton.
Ranciere. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minnesota.

'''Democratic Compositions'''
Jodi Dean. Democracy and other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke.
Michael Hardt. Thomas Jefferson: The Declaration of Independence. Verso.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State.
Ernesto Laclau. On Populist Reason.

Portal:Democratic Theory

2012-05-11T18:32:32Z

Jeff:

[Why Democratic Theory?]

*'''Foundations'''
**Etienne de la Boetie. The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Black Rose.
**Hobbes. Leviathan. Norton.
**Locke. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge.
**Spinoza. Theological Political Treatise. Cambridge.
**Rousseau. On the Social Contract. Hackett.
**Plato. The Republic.
**Aristotle. On Politics.

*'''Constitutionalism and Sovereignty'''
**Giorgio Agamben. State of Exception. Chicago.
**Walter Benjamin. “Critique of Violence.” In One Way Street. Verso.
**Derrida. Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’” In Acts of Religion. Routledge.
**Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. MIT.

*'''Liberalism and Democracy'''
**Wendy Brown. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton
**John Durham Peters. Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition. Chicago.

*'''The Problem of Representation'''
**Pitkin, The Concept of Representation. California.
**Melissa Williams. Voice, Trust and Memory. Princeton.

'''Deliberative Democracy and its Critics'''
Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. MIT.
Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other. MIT.
Bohman and Rehg, eds., Deliberative Democracy. MIT.
Seyla Benhabib. ed. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton.
Ranciere. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minnesota.

'''Democratic Compositions'''
Jodi Dean. Democracy and other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke.
Michael Hardt. Thomas Jefferson: The Declaration of Independence. Verso.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State.
Ernesto Laclau. On Populist Reason.

Portal:Democratic Theory

2012-05-11T18:29:22Z

Jeff: Created page with "[Why Democratic Theory?] '''Foundations''' Etienne de la Boetie. The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Black Rose. Hobbes. Leviathan. Norton. Locke. T..."

[Why Democratic Theory?]

'''Foundations'''
Etienne de la Boetie. The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Black Rose.
Hobbes. Leviathan. Norton.
Locke. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge.
Spinoza. Theological Political Treatise. Cambridge.
Rousseau. On the Social Contract. Hackett.
Plato. The Republic.
Aristotle. On Politics.

'''Constitutionalism and Sovereignty'''
Giorgio Agamben. State of Exception. Chicago.
Walter Benjamin. “Critique of Violence.” In One Way Street. Verso.
Derrida. Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’” In Acts of Religion. Routledge.
Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. MIT.

'''Liberalism and Democracy'''
Wendy Brown. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton
John Durham Peters. Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition. Chicago.

'''The Problem of Representation'''
Pitkin, The Concept of Representation. California.
Melissa Williams. Voice, Trust and Memory. Princeton.

'''Deliberative Democracy and its Critics'''
Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. MIT.
Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other. MIT.
Bohman and Rehg, eds., Deliberative Democracy. MIT.
Seyla Benhabib. ed. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton.
Ranciere. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minnesota.

'''Democratic Compositions'''
Jodi Dean. Democracy and other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke.
Michael Hardt. Thomas Jefferson: The Declaration of Independence. Verso.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State.
Ernesto Laclau. On Populist Reason.

Theories and Movements

2012-05-11T18:26:38Z

Jeff: added link to democratic theory page

This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.

== Cognitive Rhetoric ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_rhetoric Cognitive Rhetoric]

== Conservatism ==

[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]], [[Anti-Nominalism]]

== Emerging Media ==
===Video Games===

[http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/026269364Xchap6.pdf ''Ian Bogost: the Rhetoric of Video Games'']

==Feminist Criticism==

[[Celeste Condit]], author of [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335639209384002#preview "Post-Burke: Transcending the Sub-Stance of Dramatism"] (1992).

[[Phyllis M. Japp]], author of “Can This Marriage Be Saved? Reclaiming Burke for Feminist Scholarship" from [http://books.google.com/books?id=CcD9wYsIy1kC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=Can+This+Marriage+Be+Saved?+Reclaiming+Burke+for+Feminist+Scholarship&source=bl&ots=0VKRayAKL4&sig=ngZCugp8lAoRrM0FwJ9pjQqId5Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sTeHT_eJG4aS8AG5sf2VCA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Can%20This%20Marriage%20Be%20Saved%3F%20Reclaiming%20Burke%20for%20Feminist%20Scholarship&f=false Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century] (1999).

== Literary Criticism ==

[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]

== New Rhetorics ==

[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]

[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal

[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]

== Pedagogical Studies ==

More a movement than a single theory, these authors have examined the way we teach rhetoric, composition, and research. The pedagogical movements listed here draw heavily from the principles of cognitive rhetoric, calling for an in-depth study of the processes of writing and research. These pedagogical models all hold that the subject matter in question, be it composition, research, or rhetorical practices, can be taught, codified, and improved upon with careful practice and consideration. They further maintain that the basic survey courses offered (think Composition I) do not adequately convey the ''techne'' required to master the subject at hand.

[[Douglas Downs]], b. : [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”|Teaching About Writing]]

[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]

[[Doug Eyman]], b. : [[Eyman, Doug and Colleen Reilly "Multifaceted Methods for Multimodal Texts"|Multifaceted Methods for Multimodal Texts]]

[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]

[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: [[Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”|In Lieu of a New Rhetoric]]

[[Rebecca Rickly]], b. : [[Rickly, Rebecca "Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation"|Messy Contextx: Research as a Rhetorical Situation]]

[[Colleen Reilly]], b. : [[Eyman, Doug and Colleen Reilly "Multifaceted Methods for Multimodal Texts"|Multifaceted Methods for Multimodal Texts]]

[[Elizabeth Wardle]], b. : [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”|Teaching About Writing]]

== Post-Structuralism ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism Post-Structuralism]

[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]

== Rogerian Rhetoric ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument Rogerian Argument]

Rogerian rhetoric is derived from the theories of Carl Rogers. Rogers originally developed his ideas as a method of therapy that was centered around understanding the person being treated. Initially called non-directive therapy, this system became the foundation for Rogers' broader ideas of the self and learning. These ideas have been applied across disciplines, heavily influencing one branch of rhetorical studies.

Rogerian rhetoric then, is the idea that persuasion is most effective when the positions on all side of the argument are understood, and a connection is made between the people involved. Terms such as non-combative and person-centered are some of the theory's watch-words.

Rogerian rhetoric typically consists of 4 main stages:
# An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.
# A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.
# A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.
# A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better (Brent)

[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]

[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]

See Also:

[[Wikipedia:Carl_Rogers|Carl Rogers]]

== Semiotics ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics Semiotics]

Originally developed by Ferdinand de Saussure as a part of the framework for structural linguistics, Semiotics is the field of study devoted to [[wikipedia:Sign_(semiotics)|sign]] and communication. Semiotics holds that meaning is created and conveyed through linguistic sign. Related works examine the relationship between signified and signifier, how signs fit into larger works, and how signs influence and change the people that use them.

[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] ("The Dialogic Imagination"), [[Speech genres]]

[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing

[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]

See also:
[http://www.bzzzpeek.com Bzzzpeek]

== Sophism ==

From Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism "Sophism"]

"Sophism in the modern definition is a specious argument used for deceiving someone. In ancient Greece, sophists were a category of teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric for the purpose of teaching arete — excellence, or virtue — predominantly to young statesmen and nobility. The practice of charging money for education and providing wisdom only to those who could pay led to the condemnations made by Socrates, through [[Plato]] in his Dialogues, as well as Xenophon's Memorabilia. Through works such as these, Sophists were portrayed as "specious" or "deceptive," hence the modern meaning of the term."

See Also:

*[[Aristotle]]
*[[Plato]]

== Writing and Technology ==

[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:

[[Cynthia L. Selfe]]: [[Influential Role in "Computers in the Composition Classroom"]]

[[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]: [[Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures]]

== Uncategorized ==

'''Authors'''

[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]

[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]

[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]

[[John M. Slatin]]:

[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:

[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:

[[John Logie]]:

[[Sean D. Williams]]:

[[Steven Fraiberg]]:

Sorapure et al.?

Palmquist et al.?

[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:

'''Theories/Movements'''

[[Belletristic/Elocution]]

[[Semanticism]]

== Rhetoric and Democratic Theory ==
[[Portal:Democratic Theory]]

Talk:Main Page

2012-05-11T18:17:19Z

Jeff: Created page with "''RhetorClick is an online resource designed to help undergraduate students explore and understand the academic discipline of rhetoric and its affiliated fields'' Could we delet..."

''RhetorClick is an online resource designed to help undergraduate students explore and understand the academic discipline of rhetoric and its affiliated fields''

Could we delete the word "undergraduate" and just have the focus be on students in general?

Resources

2012-04-25T20:55:38Z

Jeff: /* Professional Organizations */

This page is a place to post helpful resources for students. As you find interesting websites, academic databases, videos, etc., add them to this page. If your resource doesn't fit into one of the preexisting categories, feel free to create a new category.

==Digital Composing Tools==
* [http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ Audacity]
<blockquote>"Free, open source, cross-platform software for recording and editing sounds."</blockquote>
*[http://advanced.aviary.com/tools Aviary Tools]
<blockquote>"Aviary is a suite of powerful creative applications that you can use right in your web browser. We're on a mission to make creation accessible to artists of all genres, from graphic design to audio editing."</blockquote>
*[http://prezi.com/ Prezi]
<blockquote>"cloud-based presentation software that opens up a new world between whiteboards and slides."</blockquote>
* [https://www.filelab.com/ FileLab]
<blockquote>File Lab is an online video and audio editor. </blockquote>
* [http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/ Screencast-o-Matic]
<blockquote>"One-click screen recording on Windows or Mac with no install for free"</blockquote>
* [http://www.macworld.com/article/1157590/how_to_rip_dvd_handbrake.html How to Rip a DVD with Handbrake (Mac)], [http://www.pcworld.com/article/242876/how_to_rip_a_dvd_with_handbrake.html How to Rip a DVD with Handbrake (PC)]
<blockquote>[http://handbrake.fr/downloads.php Handbrake] is a powerful cross-platform, free ripping and transcoding tool. </blockquote>

==Digital Research Tools==
*[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-downloadhelper/ Video Download Helper for Firefox]
<blockquote>"The easy way to download and convert Web videos from hundreds of YouTube-like sites.
This works also for audio and picture galleries."</blockquote>
* [http://voyeurtools.org/ Voyeur Tools: Visualize Your Texts]
<blockquote> "One of the more useful components of Voyeur is that it allows researchers to analyze both a corpus of documents or individual sources."</blockquote>
* [https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/ToolDatabase Digital Methods Initiative's database of tools]
<blockquote>"The Digital Methods Initiative is a contribution to doing research into the "natively digital"...the focus is on how methods may change, however slightly or wholesale, owing to the technical specificities of new media." The site may cause your browser to issue a security warning because of an alleged security certificate problem. As far as I know, the site does not present a security problem.</blockquote>
*[http://www.httrack.com/page/1/en/index.html HTTrack Website Copier]
<blockquote> "[A]llows you to download a...site from the Internet to a local directory, building recursively all directories, getting HTML, images, and other files from the server to your computer." Windows, Mac, Linux</blockquote>
* [http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/ IBM's Many Eyes]
<blockquote>"This site is set up to allow the entire internet community to upload data, visualize it, and talk about their discoveries with other people."</blockquote>
* [http://dirt.projectbamboo.org/ Bamboo DiRT (beta) Digital Research Tools]
<blockquote>"Project Bamboo is currently piloting a directory of tools, services, and collections that can facilitate digital research. This evolution of [https://digitalresearchtools.pbworks.com/w/page/17801672/FrontPage Lisa Spiro's DiRT wiki] includes new ways of browsing and commenting on the entries." </blockquote>
*[http://www.sitesucker.us/home.html Site Sucker for Mac or iOS]
<blockquote> Site Sucker is a donationware site ripper for Mac or iOS. </blockquote>
*[http://lifehacker.com/161202/geek-to-live--mastering-wget Geek to Live: Mastering Wget on Lifehacker.com]
<blockquote> Wget is the Swiss Army knife of internet download managers. It has a cameo in ''The Social Network'' about ten minutes in.</blockquote>
*[http://winmerge.org/ WinMerge]
<blockquote>One of Dr. Loewe's favorite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Free_file_comparison_tools diff tools] for Windows</blockquote>
*[http://www.quickdiff.com/ QuickDiff.com]
<blockquote>A quick online [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Free_file_comparison_tools diff tool]</blockquote>

==How to Read Difficult Texts==
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mzdl7_lPDdBQsmdRfwDccKm1ONpsCjOrqTR3QQa-zRI/edit Handout on Grappling with Tough Readings]
== On-Campus Resources ==
* [http://libr.stedwards.edu/ Library]
* [http://www.stedwards.edu/writing/index.html Writing Center]

== Websites ==
* [http://rhetoric.eserver.org/ eServer Rhetoric and Composition]
* [http://library.drewloewe.net/ Dr. Loewe's Library (updated sporadically)]
* [http://bibliolicious.wordpress.com/ Dr. Loewe's Bibliographies (updated sporadically)]
* [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Historical_Rhetorics WikiBooks portal on the history of Rhetoric]

== Scholarly Journals ==
* [http://www.ncte.org/journals/ce College English]
* [http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc College Composition and Communication]
* [http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/ Computers and Composition]
* [http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/ Computers and Composition Online]
* [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10572252.asp Technical Communication Quarterly]
* [http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/ Kairos]
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/rsq Rhetoric Society Quarterly]
* [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/RQJS Quarterly Journal of Speech]

== Professional Organizations ==
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/Home_Page Rhetoric Society of America]
* [http://www.ncte.org/ National Council of Teachers of English]
* [http://www.attw.org/ Association of Teachers of Technical Writing]
* [http://wpacouncil.org/ Council of Writing Program Administrators]
* [http://www.businesscommunication.org/ Association for Business Communication]
* [http://www.stc.org/ Society for Technical Communication]
* [http://www.ssrn.com/update/rcrn/rcrnann/annA001.html Rhetoric & Communication Research Network]

== Conferences ==
* [http://www.ncte.org/cccc Conference on College Composition and Communication]
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/conferences Rhetoric Society of America]
* [http://louisville.edu/conference/watson Watson]
* [http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/english/TILTS/TILTS.php TILTS]

== Blogs ==
* [http://www.stephenfry.com/ The New Adventures of Stephen Fry]
* [http://illinois.edu/db/view/25 The Web of Language by Dennis Baron]
* [http://www.figarospeech.com/ It Figures - Figures of Speech]
* [http://www.alex-reid.net Digital Digs--Alex Reid]
* [http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/ Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy]

== Database and Annotated Bibliographies ==
* [http://comppile.org/search/comppile_main_search.php CompPile: Journals in Rhetoric and Composition]
* [http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/files/bibliography.pdf Bibliography on Web/Internet Credibility]

Plato

2012-04-17T22:54:02Z

Jeff: /* External Links */

== Biography ==

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

==== Articles/Essays ====

== Further Reading ==

== Other Scholarly Views ==

==== Agreement ====

Those authors that agree with Plato.

==== Opposition ====

*[[Aristotle]]

== References ==

== External Links ==
[http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/300/300chron.html Annotated History of Ancient Rhetoric]

Aristotle

2012-04-17T22:53:45Z

Jeff: /* External Links */

== Biography ==

Aristotle (384-322 BCE), student of [[Plato]] and teacher of Alexander the Great, was a Greek philosopher. He lived in Athens for most or all of his life and wrote books on politics, ethics, physics, metaphysics, logic, poetry, and, most importantly for the purposes of rhetorical theory, rhetoric. Aristotle's [[Aristotle, Rhetoric | ''Rhetoric'']] is one of the oldest documents that treats the subject as a legitimate discipline and art, or in Aristotle's words, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne "techne."] Aristotle also provided the world's first definition of rhetoric as "the art of persuasion."

After the fall of Rome, the Aristotelian worldview became so widespread throughout the West that to challenge his findings could have been considered heresy -- in fact it was in the case of Galileo. It could even be argued that the only philosopher that could perhaps match Aristotle's influence would be his teacher [[Plato]]. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/</ref>

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

: [[Aristotle,_Poetics | ''Poetics'']] -- ([http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html full text])
: [[Aristotle,_Rhetoric | ''Rhetoric'']] -- ([http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/ full text])
: ''Nicomachaean Ethics'' ([http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html full text])
: ''Politics'' ([http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html full text])
: ''Metaphysics'' ([http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html full text])
: ''Physics'' ([http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.4.iv.html full text])
: ''Organon'' (Logic) ([http://books.google.com/books?id=BHowAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=aristotle's+organon+full+text&source=bl&ots=T0On9m2Ub2&sig=JY7x80IiSqvOdU7a6Eef6cjipX4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jgCHT9bPHOOI8AHK7qycCA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false full text])
: ''On the Soul'' ([http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html full text])

=== Dialogues ===

== Other Scholarly Views ==

==== Agreement ====

: [[Lisa_S._Ede | Ede]]
: [[Andrea_A._Lunsford | Lunsford]]

==== Opposition ====

: [[Plato]]

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle Full Aristotle Bio]
:
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Aristotle Profile]

[http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/300/300chron.html Annotated History of Ancient Rhetoric]

Resources

2012-04-17T22:52:54Z

Jeff: /* Websites */

This page is a place to post helpful resources for students. As you find interesting websites, academic databases, videos, etc., add them to this page. If your resource doesn't fit into one of the preexisting categories, feel free to create a new category.

==Digital Composing Tools==
* [http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ Audacity]
<blockquote>"Free, open source, cross-platform software for recording and editing sounds."</blockquote>
*[http://advanced.aviary.com/tools Aviary Tools]
<blockquote>"Aviary is a suite of powerful creative applications that you can use right in your web browser. We're on a mission to make creation accessible to artists of all genres, from graphic design to audio editing."</blockquote>
*[http://prezi.com/ Prezi]
<blockquote>"cloud-based presentation software that opens up a new world between whiteboards and slides."</blockquote>
* [https://www.filelab.com/ FileLab]
<blockquote>File Lab is an online video and audio editor. </blockquote>
* [http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/ Screencast-o-Matic]
<blockquote>"One-click screen recording on Windows or Mac with no install for free"</blockquote>
* [http://www.macworld.com/article/1157590/how_to_rip_dvd_handbrake.html How to Rip a DVD with Handbrake (Mac)], [http://www.pcworld.com/article/242876/how_to_rip_a_dvd_with_handbrake.html How to Rip a DVD with Handbrake (PC)]
<blockquote>[http://handbrake.fr/downloads.php Handbrake] is a powerful cross-platform, free ripping and transcoding tool. </blockquote>

==Digital Research Tools==
*[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-downloadhelper/ Video Download Helper for Firefox]
<blockquote>"The easy way to download and convert Web videos from hundreds of YouTube-like sites.
This works also for audio and picture galleries."</blockquote>
* [http://voyeurtools.org/ Voyeur Tools: Visualize Your Texts]
<blockquote> "One of the more useful components of Voyeur is that it allows researchers to analyze both a corpus of documents or individual sources."</blockquote>
* [https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/ToolDatabase Digital Methods Initiative's database of tools]
<blockquote>"The Digital Methods Initiative is a contribution to doing research into the "natively digital"...the focus is on how methods may change, however slightly or wholesale, owing to the technical specificities of new media." The site may cause your browser to issue a security warning because of an alleged security certificate problem. As far as I know, the site does not present a security problem.</blockquote>
*[http://www.httrack.com/page/1/en/index.html HTTrack Website Copier]
<blockquote> "[A]llows you to download a...site from the Internet to a local directory, building recursively all directories, getting HTML, images, and other files from the server to your computer." Windows, Mac, Linux</blockquote>
* [http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/ IBM's Many Eyes]
<blockquote>"This site is set up to allow the entire internet community to upload data, visualize it, and talk about their discoveries with other people."</blockquote>
* [http://dirt.projectbamboo.org/ Bamboo DiRT (beta) Digital Research Tools]
<blockquote>"Project Bamboo is currently piloting a directory of tools, services, and collections that can facilitate digital research. This evolution of [https://digitalresearchtools.pbworks.com/w/page/17801672/FrontPage Lisa Spiro's DiRT wiki] includes new ways of browsing and commenting on the entries." </blockquote>
*[http://www.sitesucker.us/home.html Site Sucker for Mac or iOS]
<blockquote> Site Sucker is a donationware site ripper for Mac or iOS. </blockquote>
*[http://lifehacker.com/161202/geek-to-live--mastering-wget Geek to Live: Mastering Wget on Lifehacker.com]
<blockquote> Wget is the Swiss Army knife of internet download managers. It has a cameo in ''The Social Network'' about ten minutes in.</blockquote>
*[http://winmerge.org/ WinMerge]
<blockquote>One of Dr. Loewe's favorite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Free_file_comparison_tools diff tools] for Windows</blockquote>
*[http://www.quickdiff.com/ QuickDiff.com]
<blockquote>A quick online [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Free_file_comparison_tools diff tool]</blockquote>

==How to Read Difficult Texts==
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mzdl7_lPDdBQsmdRfwDccKm1ONpsCjOrqTR3QQa-zRI/edit Handout on Grappling with Tough Readings]
== On-Campus Resources ==
* [http://libr.stedwards.edu/ Library]
* [http://www.stedwards.edu/writing/index.html Writing Center]

== Websites ==
* [http://rhetoric.eserver.org/ eServer Rhetoric and Composition]
* [http://library.drewloewe.net/ Dr. Loewe's Library (updated sporadically)]
* [http://bibliolicious.wordpress.com/ Dr. Loewe's Bibliographies (updated sporadically)]
* [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Historical_Rhetorics WikiBooks portal on the history of Rhetoric]

== Scholarly Journals ==
* [http://www.ncte.org/journals/ce College English]
* [http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc College Composition and Communication]
* [http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/ Computers and Composition]
* [http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/ Computers and Composition Online]
* [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10572252.asp Technical Communication Quarterly]
* [http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/ Kairos]
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/rsq Rhetoric Society Quarterly]
* [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/RQJS Quarterly Journal of Speech]

== Professional Organizations ==
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/Home_Page Rhetoric Society of America]
* [http://www.ncte.org/ National Council of Teachers of English]
* [http://www.attw.org/ Association of Teachers of Technical Writing]
* [http://wpacouncil.org/ Council of Writing Program Administrators]
* [http://www.businesscommunication.org/ Association for Business Communication]
* [http://www.stc.org/ Society for Technical Communication]

== Conferences ==
* [http://www.ncte.org/cccc Conference on College Composition and Communication]
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/conferences Rhetoric Society of America]
* [http://louisville.edu/conference/watson Watson]
* [http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/english/TILTS/TILTS.php TILTS]

== Blogs ==
* [http://www.stephenfry.com/ The New Adventures of Stephen Fry]
* [http://illinois.edu/db/view/25 The Web of Language by Dennis Baron]
* [http://www.figarospeech.com/ It Figures - Figures of Speech]
* [http://www.alex-reid.net Digital Digs--Alex Reid]
* [http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/ Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy]

== Database and Annotated Bibliographies ==
* [http://comppile.org/search/comppile_main_search.php CompPile: Journals in Rhetoric and Composition]
* [http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/files/bibliography.pdf Bibliography on Web/Internet Credibility]

Resources

2012-04-17T22:52:44Z

Jeff: /* Websites */

This page is a place to post helpful resources for students. As you find interesting websites, academic databases, videos, etc., add them to this page. If your resource doesn't fit into one of the preexisting categories, feel free to create a new category.

==Digital Composing Tools==
* [http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ Audacity]
<blockquote>"Free, open source, cross-platform software for recording and editing sounds."</blockquote>
*[http://advanced.aviary.com/tools Aviary Tools]
<blockquote>"Aviary is a suite of powerful creative applications that you can use right in your web browser. We're on a mission to make creation accessible to artists of all genres, from graphic design to audio editing."</blockquote>
*[http://prezi.com/ Prezi]
<blockquote>"cloud-based presentation software that opens up a new world between whiteboards and slides."</blockquote>
* [https://www.filelab.com/ FileLab]
<blockquote>File Lab is an online video and audio editor. </blockquote>
* [http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/ Screencast-o-Matic]
<blockquote>"One-click screen recording on Windows or Mac with no install for free"</blockquote>
* [http://www.macworld.com/article/1157590/how_to_rip_dvd_handbrake.html How to Rip a DVD with Handbrake (Mac)], [http://www.pcworld.com/article/242876/how_to_rip_a_dvd_with_handbrake.html How to Rip a DVD with Handbrake (PC)]
<blockquote>[http://handbrake.fr/downloads.php Handbrake] is a powerful cross-platform, free ripping and transcoding tool. </blockquote>

==Digital Research Tools==
*[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-downloadhelper/ Video Download Helper for Firefox]
<blockquote>"The easy way to download and convert Web videos from hundreds of YouTube-like sites.
This works also for audio and picture galleries."</blockquote>
* [http://voyeurtools.org/ Voyeur Tools: Visualize Your Texts]
<blockquote> "One of the more useful components of Voyeur is that it allows researchers to analyze both a corpus of documents or individual sources."</blockquote>
* [https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/ToolDatabase Digital Methods Initiative's database of tools]
<blockquote>"The Digital Methods Initiative is a contribution to doing research into the "natively digital"...the focus is on how methods may change, however slightly or wholesale, owing to the technical specificities of new media." The site may cause your browser to issue a security warning because of an alleged security certificate problem. As far as I know, the site does not present a security problem.</blockquote>
*[http://www.httrack.com/page/1/en/index.html HTTrack Website Copier]
<blockquote> "[A]llows you to download a...site from the Internet to a local directory, building recursively all directories, getting HTML, images, and other files from the server to your computer." Windows, Mac, Linux</blockquote>
* [http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/ IBM's Many Eyes]
<blockquote>"This site is set up to allow the entire internet community to upload data, visualize it, and talk about their discoveries with other people."</blockquote>
* [http://dirt.projectbamboo.org/ Bamboo DiRT (beta) Digital Research Tools]
<blockquote>"Project Bamboo is currently piloting a directory of tools, services, and collections that can facilitate digital research. This evolution of [https://digitalresearchtools.pbworks.com/w/page/17801672/FrontPage Lisa Spiro's DiRT wiki] includes new ways of browsing and commenting on the entries." </blockquote>
*[http://www.sitesucker.us/home.html Site Sucker for Mac or iOS]
<blockquote> Site Sucker is a donationware site ripper for Mac or iOS. </blockquote>
*[http://lifehacker.com/161202/geek-to-live--mastering-wget Geek to Live: Mastering Wget on Lifehacker.com]
<blockquote> Wget is the Swiss Army knife of internet download managers. It has a cameo in ''The Social Network'' about ten minutes in.</blockquote>
*[http://winmerge.org/ WinMerge]
<blockquote>One of Dr. Loewe's favorite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Free_file_comparison_tools diff tools] for Windows</blockquote>
*[http://www.quickdiff.com/ QuickDiff.com]
<blockquote>A quick online [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Free_file_comparison_tools diff tool]</blockquote>

==How to Read Difficult Texts==
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mzdl7_lPDdBQsmdRfwDccKm1ONpsCjOrqTR3QQa-zRI/edit Handout on Grappling with Tough Readings]
== On-Campus Resources ==
* [http://libr.stedwards.edu/ Library]
* [http://www.stedwards.edu/writing/index.html Writing Center]

== Websites ==
* [http://rhetoric.eserver.org/ eServer Rhetoric and Composition]
* [http://library.drewloewe.net/ Dr. Loewe's Library (updated sporadically)]
* [http://bibliolicious.wordpress.com/ Dr. Loewe's Bibliographies (updated sporadically)]
* [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Historical_Rhetorics WikiBooks portal on the history of Rhetoric]
* [http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/300/300chron.html annotated history of ancient rhetoric]

== Scholarly Journals ==
* [http://www.ncte.org/journals/ce College English]
* [http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc College Composition and Communication]
* [http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/ Computers and Composition]
* [http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/ Computers and Composition Online]
* [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10572252.asp Technical Communication Quarterly]
* [http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/ Kairos]
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/rsq Rhetoric Society Quarterly]
* [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/RQJS Quarterly Journal of Speech]

== Professional Organizations ==
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/Home_Page Rhetoric Society of America]
* [http://www.ncte.org/ National Council of Teachers of English]
* [http://www.attw.org/ Association of Teachers of Technical Writing]
* [http://wpacouncil.org/ Council of Writing Program Administrators]
* [http://www.businesscommunication.org/ Association for Business Communication]
* [http://www.stc.org/ Society for Technical Communication]

== Conferences ==
* [http://www.ncte.org/cccc Conference on College Composition and Communication]
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/conferences Rhetoric Society of America]
* [http://louisville.edu/conference/watson Watson]
* [http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/english/TILTS/TILTS.php TILTS]

== Blogs ==
* [http://www.stephenfry.com/ The New Adventures of Stephen Fry]
* [http://illinois.edu/db/view/25 The Web of Language by Dennis Baron]
* [http://www.figarospeech.com/ It Figures - Figures of Speech]
* [http://www.alex-reid.net Digital Digs--Alex Reid]
* [http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/ Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy]

== Database and Annotated Bibliographies ==
* [http://comppile.org/search/comppile_main_search.php CompPile: Journals in Rhetoric and Composition]
* [http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/files/bibliography.pdf Bibliography on Web/Internet Credibility]

Resources

2012-04-17T22:51:15Z

Jeff: /* Websites */ added "Historical Rhetorics"

This page is a place to post helpful resources for students. As you find interesting websites, academic databases, videos, etc., add them to this page. If your resource doesn't fit into one of the preexisting categories, feel free to create a new category.

==Digital Composing Tools==
* [http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ Audacity]
<blockquote>"Free, open source, cross-platform software for recording and editing sounds."</blockquote>
*[http://advanced.aviary.com/tools Aviary Tools]
<blockquote>"Aviary is a suite of powerful creative applications that you can use right in your web browser. We're on a mission to make creation accessible to artists of all genres, from graphic design to audio editing."</blockquote>
*[http://prezi.com/ Prezi]
<blockquote>"cloud-based presentation software that opens up a new world between whiteboards and slides."</blockquote>
* [https://www.filelab.com/ FileLab]
<blockquote>File Lab is an online video and audio editor. </blockquote>
* [http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/ Screencast-o-Matic]
<blockquote>"One-click screen recording on Windows or Mac with no install for free"</blockquote>
* [http://www.macworld.com/article/1157590/how_to_rip_dvd_handbrake.html How to Rip a DVD with Handbrake (Mac)], [http://www.pcworld.com/article/242876/how_to_rip_a_dvd_with_handbrake.html How to Rip a DVD with Handbrake (PC)]
<blockquote>[http://handbrake.fr/downloads.php Handbrake] is a powerful cross-platform, free ripping and transcoding tool. </blockquote>

==Digital Research Tools==
*[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-downloadhelper/ Video Download Helper for Firefox]
<blockquote>"The easy way to download and convert Web videos from hundreds of YouTube-like sites.
This works also for audio and picture galleries."</blockquote>
* [http://voyeurtools.org/ Voyeur Tools: Visualize Your Texts]
<blockquote> "One of the more useful components of Voyeur is that it allows researchers to analyze both a corpus of documents or individual sources."</blockquote>
* [https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/ToolDatabase Digital Methods Initiative's database of tools]
<blockquote>"The Digital Methods Initiative is a contribution to doing research into the "natively digital"...the focus is on how methods may change, however slightly or wholesale, owing to the technical specificities of new media." The site may cause your browser to issue a security warning because of an alleged security certificate problem. As far as I know, the site does not present a security problem.</blockquote>
*[http://www.httrack.com/page/1/en/index.html HTTrack Website Copier]
<blockquote> "[A]llows you to download a...site from the Internet to a local directory, building recursively all directories, getting HTML, images, and other files from the server to your computer." Windows, Mac, Linux</blockquote>
* [http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/ IBM's Many Eyes]
<blockquote>"This site is set up to allow the entire internet community to upload data, visualize it, and talk about their discoveries with other people."</blockquote>
* [http://dirt.projectbamboo.org/ Bamboo DiRT (beta) Digital Research Tools]
<blockquote>"Project Bamboo is currently piloting a directory of tools, services, and collections that can facilitate digital research. This evolution of [https://digitalresearchtools.pbworks.com/w/page/17801672/FrontPage Lisa Spiro's DiRT wiki] includes new ways of browsing and commenting on the entries." </blockquote>
*[http://www.sitesucker.us/home.html Site Sucker for Mac or iOS]
<blockquote> Site Sucker is a donationware site ripper for Mac or iOS. </blockquote>
*[http://lifehacker.com/161202/geek-to-live--mastering-wget Geek to Live: Mastering Wget on Lifehacker.com]
<blockquote> Wget is the Swiss Army knife of internet download managers. It has a cameo in ''The Social Network'' about ten minutes in.</blockquote>
*[http://winmerge.org/ WinMerge]
<blockquote>One of Dr. Loewe's favorite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Free_file_comparison_tools diff tools] for Windows</blockquote>
*[http://www.quickdiff.com/ QuickDiff.com]
<blockquote>A quick online [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Free_file_comparison_tools diff tool]</blockquote>

==How to Read Difficult Texts==
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mzdl7_lPDdBQsmdRfwDccKm1ONpsCjOrqTR3QQa-zRI/edit Handout on Grappling with Tough Readings]
== On-Campus Resources ==
* [http://libr.stedwards.edu/ Library]
* [http://www.stedwards.edu/writing/index.html Writing Center]

== Websites ==
* [http://rhetoric.eserver.org/ eServer Rhetoric and Composition]
* [http://library.drewloewe.net/ Dr. Loewe's Library (updated sporadically)]
* [http://bibliolicious.wordpress.com/ Dr. Loewe's Bibliographies (updated sporadically)]
* [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Historical_Rhetorics WikiBooks portal on the history of Rhetoric]

== Scholarly Journals ==
* [http://www.ncte.org/journals/ce College English]
* [http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc College Composition and Communication]
* [http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/ Computers and Composition]
* [http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/ Computers and Composition Online]
* [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10572252.asp Technical Communication Quarterly]
* [http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/ Kairos]
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/rsq Rhetoric Society Quarterly]
* [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/RQJS Quarterly Journal of Speech]

== Professional Organizations ==
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/Home_Page Rhetoric Society of America]
* [http://www.ncte.org/ National Council of Teachers of English]
* [http://www.attw.org/ Association of Teachers of Technical Writing]
* [http://wpacouncil.org/ Council of Writing Program Administrators]
* [http://www.businesscommunication.org/ Association for Business Communication]
* [http://www.stc.org/ Society for Technical Communication]

== Conferences ==
* [http://www.ncte.org/cccc Conference on College Composition and Communication]
* [http://www.associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/conferences Rhetoric Society of America]
* [http://louisville.edu/conference/watson Watson]
* [http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/english/TILTS/TILTS.php TILTS]

== Blogs ==
* [http://www.stephenfry.com/ The New Adventures of Stephen Fry]
* [http://illinois.edu/db/view/25 The Web of Language by Dennis Baron]
* [http://www.figarospeech.com/ It Figures - Figures of Speech]
* [http://www.alex-reid.net Digital Digs--Alex Reid]
* [http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/ Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy]

== Database and Annotated Bibliographies ==
* [http://comppile.org/search/comppile_main_search.php CompPile: Journals in Rhetoric and Composition]
* [http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/files/bibliography.pdf Bibliography on Web/Internet Credibility]

Chaim Perelman

2012-04-13T17:58:07Z

Jeff: /* External Links */

'''Chaïm Perelman''' (1912-1984) was a Jewish philosopher best known for his book The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Traité de L'argumentation - La Nouvelle Rhétorique) in 1958 with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Perelman was a professor of logic and metaphysics at Université Libre in Brussels in 1944 and spent most of his career there. His focus on mathematical logic would later shift to forms of discursive reasoning and notions of justice.

== Biography ==
'''Early Life'''

Perelman's Jewish heritage had a profound impact on his outlook on life and strongly influenced his views on justice, a key to his concept of argumentation and The New Rhetoric. Perelman, experiencing post-World World I Europe, the rise of Hitler, and widespread antisemitism, created and lead the Jewish wing of the Belgium resistance movement. The horrors of the Holocaust lead him to publicly announce his devotion to the Jewish notion of justice and cultural Judaism.

== The New Rhetoric ==

'''Judaism, Justice, and The New Rhetoric'''

Perelman turned heavily to the Jewish notions of justice in order to make sense of the widespread destruction he witnessed in World War II. He realized "that apodictic logic could not lead to a workable concept of justice for use in life and argument led him to reconsider the question of justification" (Frank 313). Heavily influenced by the Jewish psychologist Henri Baruk, Perelman took in the "Jewish tradition... of justification that avoided dualism and worked to blend love and justice, truth and peace" (Frank 313). The Jewish tradition of justice requires a reason that includes emotion, empathy, and rationality and insists that those who judge should be compassionate.

Drawing inspiration from Talmudic texts, a collection of Jewish laws and traditions, Perelman contrasted Jewish pluralism with the Western notion of dualistic rationality. Perelman believed the Enlightenment rationalists, specifically Descartes, had a limited view of reason and argued against the notion that there must be one answer to a given question. Perelman embraced Talmudic reasoning, which states that "reason is plural, revealing many answers to the same question" (Frank 314). With pluralism, "opinions can conflict, coexist, and remain in the realm of the reasonable" (Frank 315).

Due to his acceptance of pluralism, Perelman recognized the limitations of syllogisms. This can be seen in his view of the audience as the focal point in argumentation, since the aim of argumentation is to persuade or convince an audience to adapt or adhere to a thesis.

'''The Universal Audience'''

Perelman uses the term universal audience in order to distinguish it from particular audiences, which applies to particular people, particular places, particular times, particular groups, etc. The universal audience is employed in argumentation in order to transcend particulars and make broad appeals: arguments aimed at particular audiences, Perelman argues, are meant to persuade, while arguments aimed at universal audiences are meant to convince. If the distinction of the universal audience was not made, "there would be no difference between an effective argument and a valid one, and rhetoric would be more vulnerable to the classical philosophical attacks," which is that rhetoric is merely flattery (Crosswhite 162).

The concept of the universal audience has roots in Jewish tradition as well. Like the Jewish thought, "the New Rhetoric prioritizes the community of minds, and it is the human audience rather than God, formal logic, or the individual that judges the merits of an argument" (Frank 320). When it comes to argumentation, it is more important to know what the audience regards as true rather than what the speaker thinks is true. With the focus on the community or audience's values, Perelman had a strong alliance with the epideictic. He believed "audiences are taught fundamental values used in making judgments" through epideictic discourse and that these values can be used to stand up against injustices (Frank 320).

The universal audience can be used in many different ways. Perelman used it to differentiate between persuading and convincing, effective argumentation from valid argumentation, fact and value. As Crosswhite points out, the universal audience "may [also] be used as a standard of relevance" (165). If an argument persuaded one particular audience, then it should also be convincing to another audience.

However, the universal audience is not literally "universal." As Crosswhite mentions, "the universal audience always has some degree of cultural specificity" (166). What one universal audience views as good or true will be different than anothers, due to history, tradition, and numerous other factors. As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca note, "Everyone constitutes the universal audience from what he knows of his fellow men, in such a way as to transcend the few oppositions he is aware of. Each individual, each culture, has thus its own conception of the universal audience" (The New Rhetoric 33).

== Article Summaries ==

[[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]

== Additional Works ==

==== Books ====
* (1958) The New Rhetoric (with Olbrechts-Tyteca). ISBN 0268004463
* (1963) The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. ISBN 0710036108
* (1965) An Historical Introduction to Philosophical Thinking. ISBN 0394306538
* (1967) Justice. ASIN B0006BQAS4
* (1979) The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. ISBN 9027710198
* (1979) New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications. ISBN 9027710198
* (1980) Justice, Law and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning. ISBN 9789027710901
* (1982) The Realm of Rhetoric. ISBN 0268016046

== Further Readings ==

Crosswhite, James (1989). [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40237588?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=55946957513 "Universality in Rhetoric: Perelman's Universal Audience"]

Frank, David A. (1997). [https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20new%20rhetoric%2C%20judaism%2C%20and%20post-enlightenment%20thought%3A%20the%20cultural%20origins%20of%20perelmanian%20philosophy&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarsbank.uoregon.edu%2Fjspui%2Fbitstream%2F1794%2F10815%2F1%2FNew%2520Rhetoric%2520and%2520Judaism.pdf&ei=Q5tvT4aZJ8iF2AWOgYHyAQ&usg=AFQjCNGp4KSq9CKMPr5jZfauHGT8YbOKRA&sig2=jce-8iBKXVGnrrlMAQbEdQ&cad=rja"The New Rhetoric, Judaism, and Post-Enlightenment Thought: The Cultural Origins of Perelmanian Philosophy"]

== References ==
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_15571.html]
* [https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20new%20rhetoric%2C%20judaism%2C%20and%20post-enlightenment%20thought%3A%20the%20cultural%20origins%20of%20perelmanian%20philosophy&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarsbank.uoregon.edu%2Fjspui%2Fbitstream%2F1794%2F10815%2F1%2FNew%2520Rhetoric%2520and%2520Judaism.pdf&ei=Q5tvT4aZJ8iF2AWOgYHyAQ&usg=AFQjCNGp4KSq9CKMPr5jZfauHGT8YbOKRA&sig2=jce-8iBKXVGnrrlMAQbEdQ&cad=rja]

== External Links ==
* [http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/rhetoric/perelman.html Adam Kissel's Reading Notes on ''The New Rhetoric'']
*[http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/Help/Tutorials/MET-POT.aspx Argumentations.com on ''The New Rhetoric'']
* [http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rca/RCAWordDocuments/jewishcountermodelfrank.pdf "The Jewish Countermodel: Talmudic Argumentation, the New Rhetoric Project, and the Classical Tradition of Rhetoric"], article by David A. Frank
* [http://www.jaconlinejournal.com/archives/vol4/long-role.pdf "The Role of Audience in Chaim Perelman's New Rhetoric"], article by Richard Long
* [http://www.scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/jspui/bitstream/.../After-New-Rhetoric.pdf "After the New Rhetoric"], book review by David A. Frank (reviews Gross and Dearin's ''Chaim Perelman'')
* [http://youtu.be/byY8lAqIg3M "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Scott Pratt and Steven Shankman]
*[http://youtu.be/G6tTc-pZeFo "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Noemi Perelman (P's daughter)]; she starts at about 10:30
*[http://youtu.be/4be1PoWTtf8 "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Alan G. Gross and Michael Leff]
*[http://youtu.be/6CkCnbZilCk "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Jeanne Fahnestock and Francis J. Mootz III]
*[http://youtu.be/7Ch-jZseKBk "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Barbara Warnick and Christopher W. Tinsdale]

Chaim Perelman

2012-04-13T17:57:28Z

Jeff: /* External Links */

'''Chaïm Perelman''' (1912-1984) was a Jewish philosopher best known for his book The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Traité de L'argumentation - La Nouvelle Rhétorique) in 1958 with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Perelman was a professor of logic and metaphysics at Université Libre in Brussels in 1944 and spent most of his career there. His focus on mathematical logic would later shift to forms of discursive reasoning and notions of justice.

== Biography ==
'''Early Life'''

Perelman's Jewish heritage had a profound impact on his outlook on life and strongly influenced his views on justice, a key to his concept of argumentation and The New Rhetoric. Perelman, experiencing post-World World I Europe, the rise of Hitler, and widespread antisemitism, created and lead the Jewish wing of the Belgium resistance movement. The horrors of the Holocaust lead him to publicly announce his devotion to the Jewish notion of justice and cultural Judaism.

== The New Rhetoric ==

'''Judaism, Justice, and The New Rhetoric'''

Perelman turned heavily to the Jewish notions of justice in order to make sense of the widespread destruction he witnessed in World War II. He realized "that apodictic logic could not lead to a workable concept of justice for use in life and argument led him to reconsider the question of justification" (Frank 313). Heavily influenced by the Jewish psychologist Henri Baruk, Perelman took in the "Jewish tradition... of justification that avoided dualism and worked to blend love and justice, truth and peace" (Frank 313). The Jewish tradition of justice requires a reason that includes emotion, empathy, and rationality and insists that those who judge should be compassionate.

Drawing inspiration from Talmudic texts, a collection of Jewish laws and traditions, Perelman contrasted Jewish pluralism with the Western notion of dualistic rationality. Perelman believed the Enlightenment rationalists, specifically Descartes, had a limited view of reason and argued against the notion that there must be one answer to a given question. Perelman embraced Talmudic reasoning, which states that "reason is plural, revealing many answers to the same question" (Frank 314). With pluralism, "opinions can conflict, coexist, and remain in the realm of the reasonable" (Frank 315).

Due to his acceptance of pluralism, Perelman recognized the limitations of syllogisms. This can be seen in his view of the audience as the focal point in argumentation, since the aim of argumentation is to persuade or convince an audience to adapt or adhere to a thesis.

'''The Universal Audience'''

Perelman uses the term universal audience in order to distinguish it from particular audiences, which applies to particular people, particular places, particular times, particular groups, etc. The universal audience is employed in argumentation in order to transcend particulars and make broad appeals: arguments aimed at particular audiences, Perelman argues, are meant to persuade, while arguments aimed at universal audiences are meant to convince. If the distinction of the universal audience was not made, "there would be no difference between an effective argument and a valid one, and rhetoric would be more vulnerable to the classical philosophical attacks," which is that rhetoric is merely flattery (Crosswhite 162).

The concept of the universal audience has roots in Jewish tradition as well. Like the Jewish thought, "the New Rhetoric prioritizes the community of minds, and it is the human audience rather than God, formal logic, or the individual that judges the merits of an argument" (Frank 320). When it comes to argumentation, it is more important to know what the audience regards as true rather than what the speaker thinks is true. With the focus on the community or audience's values, Perelman had a strong alliance with the epideictic. He believed "audiences are taught fundamental values used in making judgments" through epideictic discourse and that these values can be used to stand up against injustices (Frank 320).

The universal audience can be used in many different ways. Perelman used it to differentiate between persuading and convincing, effective argumentation from valid argumentation, fact and value. As Crosswhite points out, the universal audience "may [also] be used as a standard of relevance" (165). If an argument persuaded one particular audience, then it should also be convincing to another audience.

However, the universal audience is not literally "universal." As Crosswhite mentions, "the universal audience always has some degree of cultural specificity" (166). What one universal audience views as good or true will be different than anothers, due to history, tradition, and numerous other factors. As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca note, "Everyone constitutes the universal audience from what he knows of his fellow men, in such a way as to transcend the few oppositions he is aware of. Each individual, each culture, has thus its own conception of the universal audience" (The New Rhetoric 33).

== Article Summaries ==

[[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]

== Additional Works ==

==== Books ====
* (1958) The New Rhetoric (with Olbrechts-Tyteca). ISBN 0268004463
* (1963) The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. ISBN 0710036108
* (1965) An Historical Introduction to Philosophical Thinking. ISBN 0394306538
* (1967) Justice. ASIN B0006BQAS4
* (1979) The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. ISBN 9027710198
* (1979) New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications. ISBN 9027710198
* (1980) Justice, Law and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning. ISBN 9789027710901
* (1982) The Realm of Rhetoric. ISBN 0268016046

== Further Readings ==

Crosswhite, James (1989). [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40237588?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=55946957513 "Universality in Rhetoric: Perelman's Universal Audience"]

Frank, David A. (1997). [https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20new%20rhetoric%2C%20judaism%2C%20and%20post-enlightenment%20thought%3A%20the%20cultural%20origins%20of%20perelmanian%20philosophy&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarsbank.uoregon.edu%2Fjspui%2Fbitstream%2F1794%2F10815%2F1%2FNew%2520Rhetoric%2520and%2520Judaism.pdf&ei=Q5tvT4aZJ8iF2AWOgYHyAQ&usg=AFQjCNGp4KSq9CKMPr5jZfauHGT8YbOKRA&sig2=jce-8iBKXVGnrrlMAQbEdQ&cad=rja"The New Rhetoric, Judaism, and Post-Enlightenment Thought: The Cultural Origins of Perelmanian Philosophy"]

== References ==
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_15571.html]
* [https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20new%20rhetoric%2C%20judaism%2C%20and%20post-enlightenment%20thought%3A%20the%20cultural%20origins%20of%20perelmanian%20philosophy&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarsbank.uoregon.edu%2Fjspui%2Fbitstream%2F1794%2F10815%2F1%2FNew%2520Rhetoric%2520and%2520Judaism.pdf&ei=Q5tvT4aZJ8iF2AWOgYHyAQ&usg=AFQjCNGp4KSq9CKMPr5jZfauHGT8YbOKRA&sig2=jce-8iBKXVGnrrlMAQbEdQ&cad=rja]

== External Links ==
* [http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/rhetoric/perelman.html Adam Kissel's Reading Notes on ''The New Rhetoric'']
* [http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rca/RCAWordDocuments/jewishcountermodelfrank.pdf "The Jewish Countermodel: Talmudic Argumentation, the New Rhetoric Project, and the Classical Tradition of Rhetoric"], article by David A. Frank
* [http://www.jaconlinejournal.com/archives/vol4/long-role.pdf "The Role of Audience in Chaim Perelman's New Rhetoric"], article by Richard Long
* [http://www.scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/jspui/bitstream/.../After-New-Rhetoric.pdf "After the New Rhetoric"], book review by David A. Frank (reviews Gross and Dearin's ''Chaim Perelman'')
* [http://youtu.be/byY8lAqIg3M "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Scott Pratt and Steven Shankman]
*[http://youtu.be/G6tTc-pZeFo "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Noemi Perelman (P's daughter)]; she starts at about 10:30
*[http://youtu.be/4be1PoWTtf8 "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Alan G. Gross and Michael Leff]
*[http://youtu.be/6CkCnbZilCk "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Jeanne Fahnestock and Francis J. Mootz III]
*[http://youtu.be/7Ch-jZseKBk "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Barbara Warnick and Christopher W. Tinsdale]
*[http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/Help/Tutorials/MET-POT.aspx Argumentations.com on New Rhetoric]

Chaim Perelman

2012-04-13T14:59:00Z

Jeff: /* The New Rhetoric */ tried to work in a more explicit mention of convince vs persuade

'''Chaïm Perelman''' (1912-1984) was a Jewish philosopher best known for his book The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Traité de L'argumentation - La Nouvelle Rhétorique) in 1958 with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Perelman was a professor of logic and metaphysics at Université Libre in Brussels in 1944 and spent most of his career there. His focus on mathematical logic would later shift to forms of discursive reasoning and notions of justice.

== Biography ==
'''Early Life'''

Perelman's Jewish heritage had a profound impact on his outlook on life and strongly influenced his views on justice, a key to his concept of argumentation and The New Rhetoric. Perelman, experiencing post-World World I Europe, the rise of Hitler, and widespread antisemitism, created and lead the Jewish wing of the Belgium resistance movement. The horrors of the Holocaust lead him to publicly announce his devotion to the Jewish notion of justice and cultural Judaism.

== The New Rhetoric ==

'''Judaism, Justice, and The New Rhetoric'''

Perelman turned heavily to the Jewish notions of justice in order to make sense of the widespread destruction he witnessed in World War II. He realized "that apodictic logic could not lead to a workable concept of justice for use in life and argument led him to reconsider the question of justification" (Frank 313). Heavily influenced by the Jewish psychologist Henri Baruk, Perelman took in the "Jewish tradition... of justification that avoided dualism and worked to blend love and justice, truth and peace" (Frank 313). The Jewish tradition of justice requires a reason that includes emotion, empathy, and rationality and insists that those who judge should be compassionate.

Drawing inspiration from Talmudic texts, a collection of Jewish laws and traditions, Perelman contrasted Jewish pluralism with the Western notion of dualistic rationality. Perelman believed the Enlightenment rationalists, specifically Descartes, had a limited view of reason and argued against the notion that there must be one answer to a given question. Perelman embraced Talmudic reasoning, which states that "reason is plural, revealing many answers to the same question" (Frank 314). With pluralism, "opinions can conflict, coexist, and remain in the realm of the reasonable" (Frank 315).

Due to his acceptance of pluralism, Perelman recognized the limitations of syllogisms. This can be seen in his view of the audience as the focal point in argumentation, since the aim of argumentation is to persuade or convince an audience to adapt or adhere to a thesis.

'''The Universal Audience'''

Perelman uses the term universal audience in order to distinguish it from particular audiences, which applies to particular people, particular places, particular times, particular groups, etc. The universal audience is employed in argumentation in order to transcend particulars and make broad appeals: arguments aimed at particular audiences, Perelman argues, are meant to persuade, while arguments aimed at universal audiences are meant to convince. If the distinction of the universal audience was not made, "there would be no difference between an effective argument and a valid one, and rhetoric would be more vulnerable to the classical philosophical attacks," which is that rhetoric is merely flattery (Crosswhite 162).

The concept of the universal audience has roots in Jewish tradition as well. Like the Jewish thought, "the New Rhetoric prioritizes the community of minds, and it is the human audience rather than God, formal logic, or the individual that judges the merits of an argument" (Frank 320). When it comes to argumentation, it is more important to know what the audience regards as true rather than what the speaker thinks is true. With the focus on the community or audience's values, Perelman had a strong alliance with the epideictic. He believed "audiences are taught fundamental values used in making judgments" through epideictic discourse and that these values can be used to stand up against injustices (Frank 320).

The universal audience can be used in many different ways. Perelman used it to differentiate between persuading and convincing, effective argumentation from valid argumentation, fact and value. As Crosswhite points out, the universal audience "may [also] be used as a standard of relevance" (165). If an argument persuaded one particular audience, then it should also be convincing to another audience.

However, the universal audience is not literally "universal." As Crosswhite mentions, "the universal audience always has some degree of cultural specificity" (166). What one universal audience views as good or true will be different than anothers, due to history, tradition, and numerous other factors. As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca note, "Everyone constitutes the universal audience from what he knows of his fellow men, in such a way as to transcend the few oppositions he is aware of. Each individual, each culture, has thus its own conception of the universal audience" (The New Rhetoric 33).

== Article Summaries ==

[[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]

== Additional Works ==

==== Books ====
* (1958) The New Rhetoric (with Olbrechts-Tyteca). ISBN 0268004463
* (1963) The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. ISBN 0710036108
* (1965) An Historical Introduction to Philosophical Thinking. ISBN 0394306538
* (1967) Justice. ASIN B0006BQAS4
* (1979) The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. ISBN 9027710198
* (1979) New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications. ISBN 9027710198
* (1980) Justice, Law and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning. ISBN 9789027710901
* (1982) The Realm of Rhetoric. ISBN 0268016046

== Further Readings ==

Crosswhite, James (1989). [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40237588?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=55946957513 "Universality in Rhetoric: Perelman's Universal Audience"]

Frank, David A. (1997). [https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20new%20rhetoric%2C%20judaism%2C%20and%20post-enlightenment%20thought%3A%20the%20cultural%20origins%20of%20perelmanian%20philosophy&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarsbank.uoregon.edu%2Fjspui%2Fbitstream%2F1794%2F10815%2F1%2FNew%2520Rhetoric%2520and%2520Judaism.pdf&ei=Q5tvT4aZJ8iF2AWOgYHyAQ&usg=AFQjCNGp4KSq9CKMPr5jZfauHGT8YbOKRA&sig2=jce-8iBKXVGnrrlMAQbEdQ&cad=rja"The New Rhetoric, Judaism, and Post-Enlightenment Thought: The Cultural Origins of Perelmanian Philosophy"]

== References ==
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_15571.html]
* [https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20new%20rhetoric%2C%20judaism%2C%20and%20post-enlightenment%20thought%3A%20the%20cultural%20origins%20of%20perelmanian%20philosophy&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarsbank.uoregon.edu%2Fjspui%2Fbitstream%2F1794%2F10815%2F1%2FNew%2520Rhetoric%2520and%2520Judaism.pdf&ei=Q5tvT4aZJ8iF2AWOgYHyAQ&usg=AFQjCNGp4KSq9CKMPr5jZfauHGT8YbOKRA&sig2=jce-8iBKXVGnrrlMAQbEdQ&cad=rja]

== External Links ==
* [http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/rhetoric/perelman.html Adam Kissel's Reading Notes on ''The New Rhetoric'']
* [http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rca/RCAWordDocuments/jewishcountermodelfrank.pdf "The Jewish Countermodel: Talmudic Argumentation, the New Rhetoric Project, and the Classical Tradition of Rhetoric"], article by David A. Frank
* [http://www.jaconlinejournal.com/archives/vol4/long-role.pdf "The Role of Audience in Chaim Perelman's New Rhetoric"], article by Richard Long
* [http://www.scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/jspui/bitstream/.../After-New-Rhetoric.pdf "After the New Rhetoric"], book review by David A. Frank (reviews Gross and Dearin's ''Chaim Perelman'')
* [http://youtu.be/byY8lAqIg3M "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Scott Pratt and Steven Shankman]
*[http://youtu.be/G6tTc-pZeFo "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Noemi Perelman (P's daughter)]; she starts at about 10:30
*[http://youtu.be/4be1PoWTtf8 "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Alan G. Gross and Michael Leff]
*[http://youtu.be/6CkCnbZilCk "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Jeanne Fahnestock and Francis J. Mootz III]
*[http://youtu.be/7Ch-jZseKBk "Promise of Reason" Conference Lecture on YouTube--Barbara Warnick and Christopher W. Tinsdale]