Same Gesture, Different Meaning

     As we all may know, gestures are just as important in playing a role in a person's culture as the food they eat, the clothes they wear, or what they believe. "What is a gesture?", you may ask. Well, according to Merriam-Webster, a gesture is "a movement ususally of the body or limbs that expresses or emphasizes an idea, sentiment, or attitude" (www.m-w.com). Even though the same gestures are commonly used in different cultures, what they actually mean may not be the same. A specific gesture may be acceptable to use in one culture, but derogatory and offensive in another.

     Take the "ohh" gesture for example. This gesture is made by  creating an 'O' shape with your thumb and index fingers, while leaving your other fingers pointing upward. In the United States, this gesture simple means "OK" or "good." In France it is understood as "zero" or worthless. In Japan, the gesture means "money." Same gesture, three different meanings.

     Another gesture, especially favored by Aggieland, is "thumbs up." You create this gesture by simply pointing your thumb up and resting your remaining fingers on your palm. While this gesture means "Gig 'Em" in Aggieland, it can also mean "OK" in the United States. This gesture is also commonly used by hitchhikers in Britain and Australia, in hopes of lucking out on a ride to their destination. But this signal should be avoided in Southern Sardina or Greece, where it is an extremely obscene insult to it's receiver.

     There are many cultures that use the same gesture, but for a different purpose. Can you think of any? But.. just for a heads up, be cautious when using different gestures in different places because there's no guarantee that it will have the same meaning you intended it to have!

(Source: http://ingenira.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Read-Others-Thoughts-by-Their-Gestures)

Nightmare on Blog Street: Rhetorical Analyses on Gun Control

How do different people feel about gun control? Should the laws remain the same or should there be tougher enforcement of the law? Below are rhetorical analyses of two different blog posts relating to gun control:

Blog Post #1:

Title: Guns and Gun Control

Author: jacobsjn

Jacobsjn addresses how the gun control has yet again appeared as a major topic in recent news with mass shootings such as the Virginia Tech shooting, the massacre at the movie theater in Colorado, and now, the tragedy in Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary. He mainly uses ethical appeal and certain diction to persuade the reader to take his side in implementing better gun control. Words like "massacre, "coffin," and "horrific murder" reveal just how devastating these events were, and give the reader a better reason to take action to prevent events like the Sandy Hook shooting from ever happening again. These words also leave the reader empathetic to not only the author himself, but also all of the those who were affected by this tragedy. 

(Source: http://blogs.longwood.edu/jacobsjn/2013/02/08/blog-post-1/)

Blog Post #2

Title: Murphy, Etsy Continue Post-Newtown Gun-Control Efforts In Washington

Author: Jon Lender

Lender takes a much different approach in his blog post compared to the previous author. He takes on the issue of gun control through the eyes of U.S. Senator Christopher Murphy and U.S. Representative Elizabeth Etsy using logical appeal. However, one thing that was similar between the two blog posts was that they both were for stronger gun control enforcement. He uses evidence taken from President Barack Obama, and the Professional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force in an effort to show support for the cause. The PGVPT claimed that they "intended to reduce gun violence while respecting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans" (Lender). Even though gun control will be implemented more strictly, the rights of Americans regarding this particular freedom will not be ignored. Through this logical appeal and others to follow, the author is able to establish credibility and effectively support his claims, in an attempt to get the reader to take his side. 

(Source: http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/murphy-esty-continue-post-newtown-gun-control-efforts-in-washington/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CapitolWatch+(Blog+-+Capitol+Watch))

Which appeals do you think are most effective in persuading the reader to take a specific side? Or are all appeals created equally?

The Shift from Page to Screen: The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly

In the generation we live in now, print is disappearing and "going digital." Now, newspapers that were commonly thrown out by the paper boy in the morning are getting replaced by online articles and news websites. With the rate at which commonly printed items being replaced by more modern, digitized version rapidly increasing, we stand face-to-face with a bitter-sweet moment: recognizing the opportunities and gains, but also the hazards and losses due to a shift from page to screen. It's important for everyone be aware of these benefits and consequences because everyone is affected by this shift-some more than others.

I'm more of a visual learner, who likes things short, sweet, and to the point, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to spend your time reading line after line of  the negatives and positives of "the shift," so I think a list would be more appropriate for this topic.Since Turkle and Gopnik caused me to think about this issue, I also think its appropriate to compare their views:

The Good

• Continual connectivity to technology could increase productivity and memory (Turkle)
• News gets transported more quickly than in earlier times (Turkle)
• Online, we feel enhanced because networked, we are together (Turkle)
• Some technologies have shaped our lives, minds, and societies (Gopnik)

The Bad and the Ugly:

• Turkle argues that we expect more from technology and less from each other. She also states that the digital era has turned us all into cyborgs now, and addresses the contradiction that technology always keeps us connected, but very alone.
• The global reach of connectivity can make the most isolated outpost into a center of learning and economic activity (Turkle)
• Technology allows you to wonder in and out of the physical real. It alse leads to distracted academics and a decrease in attention sharing (Turkle)
• Technology dominates everyday activity (Gopnik)
• It's hard to know how new technologies will affect us (Gopnik)
• Technology will lead to devalued and alienated lives rather than enriched ones (Gopnik)
• We communicate through highly abstract symbols, rather than face to face (Gopnik)

From the two opposing lists, we see that Turkle and Gopnik point out more negatives than positives in making the switch from page to screen. Do you agree with their arguments, disagree, or both? Are there things that you think should be added to either list?